Free speech on social media | Page 6 | INFJ Forum

Free speech on social media

John K said:
I think the idea that the network is actually anonymous at the moment is very unlikely to be true.
Click to expand...
A good point—there are lots of backdoors in our internet infrastructure, and it is naive to think that you can truly hide your identity unless you have a very high degree of technical skill. But let's make sure we draw the causal arrow in the right direction: a large part of why it is hard to be anonymous online is because we built backdoors into common security protocols for the stated purpose of helping legal authorities identify criminals (think SESTA/FOSTA).

Your argument, in simplistic terms, is that since anonymity is a lost cause, we might as well make the most of the crimestopping opportunity afforded by the loss of anonymity. But this argument looks a little different in light of the legislative history: We paid a price, in terms of broad personal cybersecurity, in order to give the state these law enforcement powers; this was a choice that congress did not have to make but decided to. Whether that price was worth it is a matter of opinion. But it is fair to say that the (US) government can already deanonymize criminals if it wants to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote, Jexocuha, dZpADTLrPmX4c and 2 others
ultrauber said:
A good point—there are lots of backdoors in our internet infrastructure, and it is naive to think that you can truly hide your identity unless you have a very high degree of technical skill. But let's make sure we draw the causal arrow in the right direction: a large part of why it is hard to be anonymous online is because we built backdoors into common security protocols for the stated purpose of helping legal authorities identify criminals (think SESTA/FOSTA).

Your argument, in simplistic terms, is that since anonymity is a lost cause, we might as well make the most of the crimestopping opportunity afforded by the loss of anonymity. But this argument looks a little different in light of the legislative history: We paid a price, in terms of broad personal cybersecurity, in order to give the state these law enforcement powers; this was a choice that congress did not have to make but decided to. Whether that price was worth it is a matter of opinion. But it is fair to say that the (US) government can already deanonymize criminals if it wants to.
Click to expand...
Well of course I live in the UK rather than the USA, but similar issues hold here too. But it seems to me that there is a lot of ambiguous thinking on this issue. Most of us do not insist on anonymity for our mobile phone and other telephone accounts, though you can use a burner if you really want to be unknown. Similarly, a lot of us register with an internet service provider with our identities and credit card details, so we aren't really anonymous because the service companies know who we are. Personally, I actually trust these companies a lot less with my identity details than I do governments, but it's unavoidable to the vast majority of us if we want these services.

A parallel would be to insist that we should be able to drive cars without any car registration details or personal licensing, but we would then be at the mercy of people who drive anti-socially and do a lot of harm. We happily comply (well mostly :D) with rules such as speed limits, which side of the road we drive on, and what we do at controlled road junctions, and we are ok with an enforcement structure to deal with folks who don't comply with them. In other words, we sacrifice some of our freedom to the state in order to be able to drive safely in a way that's harmonious with other road users. This is really what a state is all about - enabling large numbers of people to live together relatively harmoniously in lots of other ways as well. Of course if a lot of folks don't trust the state then it isn't just things like anonymity that become an issue, but all these other things the state does that we take for granted and which make life liveable in large communities and which would break down without state structures. Anarchy isn't pretty and would soon degenerate into the law of the strongest and nastiest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote and Jexocuha
Winterflowers said:
Medium rare.
But yeh it's nothing unusual. I don't feel state apparatuses work well for me or people like me. I get that most people prefer having one and that's good for them; it's not without perks.
It's honestly a miracle nobody has arrested me yet.
Click to expand...
:laughing:

With slouch and swing around the ring
We trod the Fools' Parade!
We did not care: we knew we were
The Devil's Own Brigade:
And shaven head and feet of lead
Make a merry masquerade.
Oscar Wilde

There’s no right way I guess. Just a choice between different wrong ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote, aeon and dZpADTLrPmX4c
I’m glad I’m comfortable with some degree of state apparatuses for the reason that after I became disabled, without them I likely would have died of starvation or froze to death.

Cheers,
Ian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enkidu, Asa, John K and 2 others
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K
Didn't even have to say thing and all it took was a little cake made in shape of a tank, such what is like to exist in a country without free speech while those who do have it want to give it up which is contrary to human nature.

 
  • Like
Reactions: dZpADTLrPmX4c
Brain fart time.

If there's an expectation that I express some points of view, preferences, or opinions, but not others, I expect to be paid.

It's basically advertising, contractual "up-liking", or corporate messaging, when someone has content expectations on their speech. So where's the pay cheque?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Asa, Elder, dZpADTLrPmX4c and 1 other person
Imagine saying something be it by intention or accident only to be attacked by some random thugs, beheaded then your body set ablaze in the street that is what it is sometimes like to not have the freedom of speech.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Jexocuha and aeon
Lawsuits alleging free speech violations against social media companies are routinely dismissed. The primary grounds for these dismissals are that social media companies are not state actors and their platforms are not public forums, and therefore they are not subject to the free speech protections of the First Amendment. Consequently, those who post on social media platforms do not have the right to free speech on these social media platforms.
Click to expand...

Pinkus, B. P. (2021, April 26). The Limits of Free Speech in Social Media | Accessible Law. Accessible Law UNT Dallas College of Law. https://accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/limits-free-speech-social-media

The whole article by Pinkus, contributor for Accessible Law, is excellent in clarifying the boundaries of today's social media "culture space". Although the laws aren't perfect, as a consumer like any average individual, I believe that a bit of research goes a long way into understanding the difference between publicly owned property and privately owned property(almost all social media sites are owned by private companies) and what is appropriate for owners of property to enforce and for consumers/contributors in terms of behavior. Also, it is equally important to understand when behavior in private property crosses the boundary of legality and how the state interprets the limits on speech.
I found this helpful for me and hoped this link would be edifying to freely share.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: just me, Wyote, slant and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back