Is The Internet a Public Place?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/don...
Why you CAN’T say whatever you want on the web….
Tweet us! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel Facebook! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Talk about this episode on reddit! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel IRC! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
On the internet, you meet lots of people, have lots a conversations with strangers, end up in spots where it feels like anyone can gain access-so it would be understandable if you thought of the internet… as a public place. But… is it? Is the internet a public place? I imagine, and talk about, the internet as a set of locations traveled between. Heck you kinda have to: the thing at the top of your browser is called a LOCATION BAR, you put in ADDRESSES, you go to SITES. But, if the internet is a place it exhibits a PLACEHOOD unlike physical places. “Going” to those internet places is unlike “going” to physical ones-we can be in more than one internet place at once, move between them effortlessly and attach or detach a persistent identity. So even if the internet FEELS like a public place, is it really? And should we expect the same free speech privileges on the internet as we do in real life public spaces? Watch the episode and let us know what you think in the comments!
--CHECK OUT OUR MERCH!--
bit.ly/1U8fS1B
T-Shirts Designed by:
artsparrow.com/
--TWEET OF THE WEEK--
All you lovely people who listed us as one of your 7 fav RUclipsrs! Thank you!
--FURTHER READING & SOURCES--
Buzzfeed article:
www.buzzfeed.c...
Atlas Obscura event:
www.atlasobscur...
CASE: Christopher Langdon v. Google Inc., et al.
footnotes.pbsid...
CASE: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (No. 79-289) 447 U.S. 74
footnotes.pbsid...
CASE: Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner 407 U.S. 551 (1972)
footnotes.pbsid...
--ASSET LINKS--
00:20
Hacker Gif
imgur.com/galle...
01:01
What powers instagram article
instagram-engin...
01:05
Amazon cloud
aws.amazon.com...
01:06
Amazon hidden center artice
www.theatlantic...
01:17
Lowpoint.com screen shot website
www.low-point.com/
01:21
Bandcamp site
bandcamp.com/
02:16
Fifth element scene
• The Fifth Element - Po...
02:20
Community duy clip
• Video
02:26
Google maps clip
• #MapsAtTheMovies 1 - ...
02:30
The Living Nightmare - Oney Plays Second Life - EP 1
• The Living Nightmare -...
02:32
Pokemon go clip
• I GOT LOST PLAYING POK...
02:36
www.low-point.com/
02:41
Arcade bar clip
• Dave and Busters arcad...
02:43
Five nights at freddys clip
• Five Nights at Freddys...
02:48
Ghostbusters clip
• Ghostbusters: Library
03:41
Reddit
www.reddit.com/
04:58
Mallrats clip
• Mallrats (1/9) Movie C...
05:02
Jay and silent bob clip
• Mallrats (2/9) Movie C...
05:05
Superbad mall clip
• Video
05:09
CRazy,stupid, love clip
• Video
06:50
Google inc article
www.yumpu.com/...
07:05
Defendant artice
www.firstamendm...
07:56
Mall of america clip
• Mall of America 2010 (...
08:32
First amendment
www.michaeloart...
08:41
Hate speech
archive.adl.org...
09:04
RUclips twitter, sign EU article
www.theguardia...
10:01
Mall of america clip again
• Mall of America 2010 (...
10:04
Free speech shopping malls amendment
www.firstamendm...
10:44
Avoid being banned article
www.wikihow.com...
--MUSIC--
/ minimalist
------------------------------------------------------------------
Written and hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbr...)
![MISSING: SLIM SHADY [Expanded Mourner’s Edition Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xh8qgHrOO1g/mqdefault.jpg)
if banning someone from a site is like kicking someone out of a mall, deleting comments on your posts or blocking people is like kicking people out of a specific store
Only sometimes you get really silly like someone banning the entirety of France from their store.
banned from website= kicked out of store
comment deleted = duct
tape in mouth
#BannedBySteveShives ? Not sure how the hashtag went.
+SangoProductions213 #notsurewhwenyoutubeusedhashtags
Deleting comments is not silencing people quite literally? Like, limiting their freedom of speech
A possible solution to this is Zeronet. On Zeronet you can create distributed sites, where every visitor to the site is also a server of said site.
On Zeronet there's a new social network called "ZeroMe". What's special about this site is that anybody can post to it, and anybody can see what you say, but you are the sole owner if what you publish. Only you can delete or change your posts that everyone can see since they are cryptographically signed by your unique key. People can freely modify whatever data is on their computers, but they can't publish those changes of your posts to the rest of the users of ZeroMe since they don't have your key to sign the changes with.
Even the creator of ZeroMe can't modify posts, because again he doesn't have your key so he can't sign the files.
This basically guarantees a public space that anybody can say anything. Of course, that doesn't mean anybody will listen to you, but you can say anything you want.
reminds me of sites on freenet
Other technologies pointing in the same direction are bitcoin, ethereum and ipfs.
@Joel: I was gonna mention IPFS too :)
Yes. the internet is a _public_ place. just not a government/community owned one.
Public just means that something is a) done or perceived in open view. and b) concerns the people as a whole.
While sure, most websites require login's and registration if you are to interact with them in meaningful ways, and abuse of those privileges can lead to bans and such. _most_ sites do not actually restrict _viewing_ the content, only altering it. this is compatible with the view that public places need not be publicly owned.
A mall is a public place, because it is run in such a way that the majority of people can see what goes on inside of it and interact with it to some degree, this does *not* contradict it being a privately owned building. it is a private property that _is_ public. and the same can be said about the internet.
However, whether or not the internet is public is only part of the question here, the other part is about free speech.
This is my opinion on freedom of speech as it relates to the internet (and by extension, private property): Peoples opinions should not be censored. now you do NOT have to host ideas you do not like, just as you do not have to host any ideas. but on an ideological level we should strive for equality.
For instance, if you are offering a a place where everyone can speak then _everyone_ should be able to speak. if you are trying to create a more specific place then you should create rules, these rules should be general and apply to everyone. (IE: a 'no politics' rule on a forum that is not about politics is not censorship in anyway. however a 'no supporting trump' rule would be much more dangerous. (ideologically obviously. legally neither are))
1. You have to actually 'travel' to each site, and you can not see something on a site without traveling to it, or it being repeated.
2. abuse of login mechanics, is equivalent to breaking a lock on a door to enter (aka, it's breaking the law, and you lose any protections you have about anything said)
3. Malls can and often do remove people who are causing problems, even if it's just clothing.
-aka they are private places, OPENED TO THE PUBLIC. they ARE NOT public.
4. Free speech to say what you say, sure... but you forget.. they are free to respond.. which means to those who have the permissions (such as site owners, thread owner, company, etc) can remove your 'speech' as a form of theirs.
5. Every website has rules, Most don't read them. [Yes, sites could puts targets on their head and say, no supporting XYZ, and legally get away with it.. but such an image would do damage to most places.]
Amen hallelujah. You said everything I was thinking, probably better than I could've, and saved me from typing it all out.
I would submit however that the internet is more like a kind of museum than a mall. Museums purposefully put things on display and you need specific privelages to interact with these things on any more than a viewing level. There are however some hands-on exhibits where anyone can simply enter and interact. Museums are also specifically for storing and accessing information, just like the internet. And while museums are often both privately and state owned, there is almost always the assumption that the public is strongly encouraged to visit, interact, and become involved.
I also strongly agree with your statement on free speech. No one or their ideas should be censored. Its not like it stops people from believing in things, it often just protects people who might be offended. Only if an instance of free speech has actual potential to be become irl dangerous should they be put down. That's what I think.
But then, all ideas are dangerous in their potential, aren't they?
Getting to a computer and writng in the site's name and initaiting its loading into your browser - in my opinion - can be considered as traveling to a place.
You have to act to get there.
Most museums aren't public though. They often require a fee, own the property they're on and the collection they're showing, and will remove you from the museum if you cause problems.
Your take on free speech seems very...idealistic. What you call "offended" is often people being harassed and being made to feel actually and physically unsafe.
The internet CANNOT be a public place, because US free speech laws would also protect advertising spam so any internet "place" that completely respected free speech would quickly fill up with weight loss/penis enlargement ads or other kinds of spam. For physical spaces this isn't a problem since even the most dedicated spammers are limited by the energy and cost it takes to spread their message: eg. they can stand and shout the end is neigh on a street corner but their voice will only carry so far. The internet is fundamentally different as the cost of spreading a message borders on negligible hence spammers can quickly fill up any and all space they are allowed into. The same can be said for trolls - whereas in physical spaces people have the option to shun or avoid trolls by simply moving away there is no such option on the internet. Hence the need for "external" control via blocking tools and reporting systems to clear out the inescapable mess.
A common problem with internet communities is that they lack both formal and informal norms. Informal norms, i.e. expectations of social behavior, are very difficult to enforce when the systems that make up the internet prevent sanctions like ostracizing offenders and rewarding conformists, assuming that consistent norms can even be established in the maelstrom of ideas, values, and backgrounds that internet communities tend to be. This could be remedied by the enforcement of formal norms, i.e. rules imposed by either the host site or the law, but each of those has its own problems. Laws become hard to enforce when the criminal and the victim live in different countries, regions, or even municipalities, each of which has its own set of differing legal codes. And while host sites can and should set clear rules and expectations for their site, they lack the means to enforce them; all they can do in most cases is ban the user from the site, a penalty that's quite easily mitigated with a fake name and a junk email address. There's no jail time, no fines, no arduous court process; just the five minutes it takes to set up a new account. I have no idea what the solution to this is, but the person who finds it and implements it will go down in history as one of the great leaders or innovators of our time.
I direct you to 4chan where everyone has a voice until they don't because they either chose to shut up, were ip banned, or ran away in pure terror for any number of reasons including but not limited to: global rules, board rules, people who know more than they do, and people who don't give a shit what they think.
4chan may not be a nice place, but there are social norms there per board that you an pick up on if you visit enough.
Most online communities I can think of have both formal and informal norms... Why would you try to enforce informal norms? If you want to enforce them, they should be at least written down and then they would be formal. ... What laws would you be trying to enforce? The main laws I can think of that you would be trying to enforce would be stuff like CP or pirating. As for those two, websites have helped law enforcement a number of times to help enforce those. ... They can do a lot more than just ban the user from the site depending on the offense, but in most cases that's really all that's called for. I guess I'm unclear in what type of thing you are referring to when you are talking about breaking a formal norm.
Sean Gausman
Okay, so "formal" and "informal" norms are sociological terms that would take way too long to fully explain, but long story short, "enforcement" of informal norms is itself informal; there's no codified consequences for just being a dick, but ideally, society still actively discourages it. And the problem with a lot of internet communities - though by no means all of them - is that the informal norms are different for every individual, because they all come from a different background and have different values and worldviews. As for formal norms, let's just say that some sites are better than others. As is mentioned in the video, Twitter is really bad about this.
There is no free speech without the Internet.
That makes no sense. If a solar flare fried all our circuits we would have Free Speech as a concept.
+ChuckVanDamme But is anywhere on the internet truly anonymous, what with hackers, bots and governmental tracking? (Don't quote 4chan, it keeps many records of its users' actions for legal purposes. So do most other "anonymous" sites you could name.)
Yes... the Freedom of Speech wasn't added to the first amendment until the internet became a thing in the 1970's
***** Ah. I see, sorry.
That is simply not true though
3:56 plz someone turn this into a gif "Mmmmm, butt.... and this is a BIG mmmm butt"
We still have the GIF sharing feature on our videos! If you click the share button under the video, theres a GIF tab where you can turn any part of the video into one :thumbsup:
+PBS Idea Channel omg, guys you rock :3
puu.sh/qOMEZ.gif MMMM BUT
Wouldn't the grown up version of Chuck E. Cheese be Dave And Busters?
Yes.
I concur.
I vote for barcades.
That or possibly Hooters. Many have games. I cannot vouch for a ball pit though. I am unsure of a few waitresses at my local Hooters.
What the hell are you talking about? Hooters IS a giant ball pit. ;D
I saw a post on Reddit where someone thought that the internet is a public space and should allow for all sorts of expression. He didn't seem to understand that money is what drives most of the Social Media platforms and that money doesn't want full on expression. I would love the internet to be a public space, but as it stands money prevents that.
But even if we lived in a socialist utopia or we made a grant to create free hosting and pay mods and admins, it makes no sense to demand all spaces be Public for the reasons stated in the video.
It is a lot about money but it's not all out money.
+Devotedpupa I agree. Just because money is a prime motivator does not mean something happens "because money"; this logical fallacy is ridiculous.
Maybe I missed it, but what points were made in the video saying that Public Places should not allow Free Speech?
I think he said that many companies do not want to allow Free Speech, as found with the current precedent in shopping malls. I am saying the only reason for a business not to want to allow certain activity is because it will hurt their bottom line. Therefore money seems to be the main cause for halting free expression.
What other reason would a company deny customers the ability to do something? A commercial business should solely be concerned with profit. Bad press, and all other negatives of allowing free speech, is only bad because of profit impact. I cannot think of another reason why a business would attempt to restrict potential customers.
Noivern
Whatever reason the bloody they want. Not all companies are focused purely on profit even if that's an obvious focus of capitalism. Obviously the bigger they are, the more focused on profit and press (see: Twitter having no morals) but smaller companies can absolutely be driven by a moral compass if their base monetary needs are met.
Mike's point was that there is no such thing as a "Public place" in the web, only places that acts as ones. And that those places are fine, but don't negate the option of having places that are absolutely not public and that neither of them are forced to have free speech.
You must also keep in mind that public spaces such as libraries have restrictions as well. You can't go to the library naked. You can't harm someone at the library. You must pay a fine if you don't return a book by a certain point. You can be kicked out if you are speaking vulgar terms. There are federal and state laws that restrict public places. And there are also space specific rules. The difference, I think, is that online spaces are often harder to control. Because of this, the rules have to be more specific. For example, you're supposed to be 13 to be on facebook. 13 is not an age at which someone can consent to sexual acts. It is not an age where someone can drink alcohol. It is not an age where someone can drive or is considered an adult. It is merely an arbitrary way of keeping innocents away from people who are acting inappropriately and may put them in danger before a moderator can catch them. I find this similar to someone needing to be 21 to get into a bar in the US. Though being in the presence of alcohol does not necessarily mean that you are drinking, it is very difficult to impossible to keep track of everyone's age and therefor enforce the law while already in the building. For the sake of simplicity as well as safety, they keep younger citizens out of the building altogether.
Also, we must consider that it seems here that you're defining a public space as a space which is owned by a government. As multiple countries are involved online, it would not be much different than being privately owned. Also, in many cases though the space itself is owned privately, the way the space is used is actually decided by the people. Similar to the way a large room may be rented for a party, a meeting, a club, or anything else as long as it falls within specific guidelines. If a website does something a majority of people disagree with, this can be spread across many other sites, and that website could and likely would be rejected by the masses and fall into obscurity. In the long run, they are businesses. When they lose money, they'll reconsider.
Basically, despite there being differences, I would still consider online spaces to be public. Even if they run differently than physical public spaces, it is impossible to expect them to be identical. They are two very different things.
"Pacific Northwest" *shows a map of California and Nevada* lol wut?
LET'S BE HONEST HERE...
Your performance Mike is thoroughly enjoyable, informative & thought-provoking... from the delivery, mannerisms & beautifully timed pauses to the perfectly corresponding gifs/pics/etc., wonderful inflections & goofy expressions.
You (and your team) sir are an artist.
Keep up the great work!
I feel very conflicted in regards to the question. I do think that preserving free speech on the internet is important because it has become the defacto place to protest and express opinions, popular or otherwise. The Arab Spring depended supremely on this ability to free speech. At the same time I don't want to take away the very reasonable rights of business owners. If someone starts shouting about how Stalin did 9/11 in a Denny's it should be the owners right to kick them out, its their establishment after all. Its almost impossible to draw the line between that and a mall. If a mall was considered a public place because enough people went to it, where is the reasonable line? If the Denny's is really popular when does that become a public place? The same thing goes websites. A website should have the ability to moderate and regulate who uses their services yet their services are essential to the modern usage of speech as protest. When does a social website cross that line into "free speech zone" or should it at all? Going one way or the other could have disastrous effects but doing nothing leaves people confused, scared, and angry like on twitter.
The internet may not be a public space, but definitely has its pubic spaces.
yeah, but most people think of the wrong spaces when they think public.
Calling the Internet a place is like calling printing presses places. By the same token, both seem not so much to be public, but to afford an expansion of public power, for better or for worse. Probably better. I guess.
it's a public restroom with an overflowing toliet.
I think it's reasonable to expect to be able to express our own opinion in every internet place, but always in the most respectful way as possible. Most of the community guidelines doesn't punish directly opinions but they punish insults and hateful speech.
Hmmm, interesting example, but the only examples similar to that that comes to my mind always implies to express the idea that some people are subhuman and I think that any definition of respect implies to recognize the other as a complete human being.
Maybe when I wrote "our own opinion" I had too much faith in humanity thinking that nobody with that kind of opinion would read my comment.
I just saw a thread on this - the last part of the video - on one of the fb groups I'm in. It's a site for introverts to talk about the way they experience the world as an introvert, ranging from the humorous to the frustrating re post topics.
But recently one person began posting a lot of activism stuff, and being disgusted that "more introverts weren't socially aware and active" etc.
When the backlash came in about this person high-jacking the group's purpose and insulting others to boot, she declared it should be her right to talk about this sort of stuff.
My comment was along the lines of: nobody said you don't have the right to do so; only that you not do so *here* because this group's description has clear guidelines and rules that exclude posts on religion, politics, and other topics that tend to get people up in arms.
There's a time and a place for everything. It's rude to demand a "right" that encroaches on another's right. In this case, the group creator/moderator's right to enforce guidelines for *their* group is being ignored in favor of the commentator's perceived right to violate the rules continuously and penalty-free.
People forget - you have the right to free speech. You don't have the right to an audience. Nobody owes anyone a platform, be it literal or on the internet. And no one has the "right" to take over someone else's established platform.
"You have the right to free speech. You don't have the right to an audience."
That's such a good articulation of what I've been trying to say for years.
I loved it when I heard it too, said by a friend. Just trying to pass the wisdom on. : )
+R MH Consider yourself respectfully patte on the shoulder. I have been looking for a witty way of putting this for years.
1234kalmar : )
Great video. One thing you failed to address (and maybe there are other comments to this effect) is that insofar as websites are "places", their entrance are not owned by them. These entrances are owned instead by Internet Service Providers or ISP's. To analogize, consider a shopping mall (already a confusing private-public space) with entrances owned by Verizon, Comcast, etc. The difference between a physical entrance and the role of an ISP is that not only does the ISP have the authority to bar entry, it also has the authority to throw someone out at any time. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but Verizon could legally, if not easily, bar access to Twitter if it wanted to, and to a specific IP address if it so desired. So there's another level of free speech / censorship that needs to be considered.
Additionally, if you're hosting your website on a shared hosting plan, you also have to abide by the hosting plans terms and conditions. Even if you own your own servers, they're based in a country.
If you're doing something illegal (E.G: child pornography), that country's government can shut down your website. Or at least, shut down the servers being hosted in the country. This also includes 'domain names'.
Example:
_"The Pirate Bay website had relocated to Iceland, after the Swedish authorities attempted to seize its domains, giving it an “.is” domain name. Within a week of the move, however, the site chose to relocate again outside of Iceland, even though ISNIC stated it had no intention of trying to seize the domain.[25] According to Icelandic law, the registrant is responsible for ensuring that the use of the domain is within the limits of the law."_
Source: freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2015/iceland
This is why the 'dark web' exists (usually accessed via TOR).
That's where you're half wrong. IT's more like a mini-mall.
The space is owned by them (say ABC for example, over YT), but the Land is owned by some other company that holds it (say if ABC didn't own it's own IPs)
-The point you are missing is.. [There would be two or more 'owners' of the site, and any of them could prevent an end user from getting/using it, legally of course]
This is why it is so important to get not just net neutrality but to classify it as a utility. Then the access to the site is more like a road. Even if it is a tollway. Otherwise it becomes a ridiculous farce of monopolies controlling where you can go because the site hasn't paid enough for you to get there.
I'm sorry, but isn't net neutrality still enforced?
Aaron Niehaus yes net neutrality is currently the standard. However there is still a push to eliminate it. Since it is just a law it can be overturned at any time. Getting access classified as a utility will eliminate almost all the problems in that regard, but until that happens we can't relax on net neutrality.
It's all private, as far as I'm concerned. I wish it weren't but it's all private organizations hosting these sites that belong to them, and therefore they have total control over what belongs on their website, so long as it's within their local laws.
But who would be running these websites if not private companies? Who would keep the site up and functional, where would we get a support staff from?
Arian hmn I don't know what your argument actually is here...
They pay for the employees, they pay to keep the sites up. They have a right to who and what is on their website.
TheMorbidHobo My point is that they have to be private
Not necessarily. All .gov sites are technically publicly owned, and therefore a public space. Of course because they're publicly owned they also focus on providing information and not social spaces. If public social websites were what people wanted it would happen. Though I doubt anyone really wants that. Part of the appeal of privatization is that it acts as a shield, albeit a thin one, against government censorship. And then there's the question if you posted a pornographic picture on a publicly owned site, could you be arrested as a sex offender as you would be if you were one of those naked trench coat perverts irl? Just something my strange brain wonders about.
Arian hmn They don't HAVE to be, as shown by .gov websites, but generally they are. That still doesn't nulify the fact that they are privately owned, and therefore privately moderated and censored by the owners and their representatives.
«Funny» thing:
In Quebec (Canada), we too had a court ruling about free speech/demonstrations not allowed in malls (Dupond v. La ville de Montréal).
In 2012, the advocate of the president (recteur) of the University of Montreal used that very ruling to conclude that demonstration couldn't be allowed in universities since they function like malls and are privatly owned (I'll skip the details, but it's not exactly the case since the government fund them and can tell them to do pretty much anything, but they still have an independant board of directors).
The court judge finally concluded that demonstrations were not allowed on campus and also in a range of 200m of the establishment.
So, even when there is a public space (we are talking about public universities here), it always «belongs» to someone else and free speech is never really allowed.
(Source, in french: mrsheep.yolasite.com/resources/Articles/Vous%20comprendrez%20que%20ce%20n'est%20pas%20un%20homme%20d'affaire.pdf )
As long as the rules are clearly defined and enforced in a private space, then that space will function properly.
This is idealistic however, and therefore difficult to maintain.
his video makes me think about the incident with Leslie Jones. Many people claimed it to be free speech, but should hate speech really be protected? I have a slew of other questions, but I'm on mobile and that's tough, bro.
That seemed to be a case of limiting Free Speech under threat of harassment on a minority. No law forced Twitter to not interce and limit FS for some to have a net positive FS balance, so to speak. Funny how Twitter only cared when that minority was ALSO a celebrity tho 🐸🍵
Not necessarily, if it is a privately owned company then they don't have to protect hate speech, because they are allowed to make rules that people have to follow.
hate speech should be protected as it is speech all the same
Although not correct,technically you're allowed to think it,but after the moment you express it,you're wrong
Do you want to know who the assholes are? Preventing someone from sharing those negative ideas and feelings doesn't get rid of them. It just makes the people who hold those ideas angry. Phrasing it as "protecting" those ideas is the only reason it sounds bad to let them speak. Who decides what is wrong to criticize? I'm in the camp that believes the government should absolutely not be in the business of deciding what can and cannot be criticized, while individual people and companies are obligated to make those decisions.
Loved the "drop mic" animation at 7:36 :)
As for the subject, I'm glad internet is not a public place and that as such we should not have a full expectation of the right of Free speech. Otherwise every single website would be full of trolls and spam.
That's a good point. Maybe the private ownership of these "digital places" may actually encourage people to meet in meat space in order to exercise their rights, as it's the only way they are able to do so.
Then move to Russia and see how that's going
I thought of this too during the episode. There is the issue of the disinhibition effect that Internet interactions can easily suffer from. It's hard to go about in public calling people vulgarities and spouting blatant lies when you have to interact in person. (That still doesn't stop everyone, but it sure does mitigate thins.) There is definitely some need in many places for some kind of monitoring and regulations to keep things sane.
Riley Melbourne Well that's sort of a false dichotomy. On the internet, if you're banned from Twitter for example due to inflammatory speech, you can always just make your own damn website where you can spew all the hateful bullshit you wish. Sure, you might not get as much traffic as when you were on Twitter, but maybe that is telling you something about how well received your statements are.
Also, the term "free speech" means different things depending on the government or society. As Mike said, the US typically leads the way regarding all things internet, but it's worth noting that implementing laws, any or all countries' laws, across a global platform would be, to say the least, tricky.
of course, but what I'm saying is that there needs to be a limit on the laws countries put on the web
In my view, internet spaces only function when used, and so when nearly all of the most popular sites are technically private, it's a bit alarming. Those private spaces are essentially the only ones that exist because public internet sites are so scarce and ineffectual. The internet functions like a social monopoly, so that if all of these private sites were to decide that they don't support certain kinds of speech, there would be very few places to turn to. And of course, in this hypothetical situation, new public spaces might arise to fulfill the need for free speech, but still, allowing these gigantic "private" internet spaces to pigeonhole language could possibly be very dangerous for the freedom speech in a world where the internet is our forum.
Wouldn't Twitter, Facebook, and other similar sites be closer to privately owned public spaces (in San Francisco you have Empire Park, Garden Terrace, and Freemont Street Plaza) which are spaces that are privately owned but are required to be open to the public, rather than malls which are closer to private spaces in which people are welcome for a single specific purpose?
I can't barely think about the subject of the video because I'm so dazed at how marvelously well written the video was. Better watch it again.
I have one simple point to add. People are allowed to be unhappy with a services community guideline. Yes websites are private services and should do what they see is best for their community.
This regardless of how valid this is peopel are still going to be upset when the formerly open a speech forum starts kicking people off it.
The internet isn't as simple as walking down the street harassing people. There's a lot of complicated infrastructure needed to make a service like Twitter ot RUclips.
Yes companies have a right to choose how they are represented. I think the "free speech" complaints come in that people think free speech soon the internet would be immensely valuable and are saddened when it is limited.
By reading the comment section on the video, it gives me different perspectives from different people which helps me to understand the topic more deeply. Actually, it didn’t change my view after reading the comments, it even strengthened my opinion. This video is very straightforward, it claims the arguments clearly. One of the reasons I like this video is the author uses a lot of funny pictures along his voice to give the audience a better way to understand the content. The appearance of the GIFs and interesting images makes the video humorous and funny. In my opinion, this video essay is better than the other 5 short video essays I have watched because the author recorded himself in the video. The advantage of that is he could really show the audience emotions and his body language make me follow his claim all along the video. I do agree with him that Internet is not a public space even though a lot of people assume it is. It has some limitations because some websites have the control of how people want to publish and what they want to publish. I think this video is great because it makes me understand it easily and the use of visuals are very effective. The use of pathos and logos makes the argument more persuasive. In conclusion, this video is good and it has a lot I can learn from when I am doing my own video essay.
We had this discussion years ago here in Germany. I think (at least at the time) we ended up treating everything that is accessible to (at least in theory) everyone, as public. This came about because some companies started taking action against bloggers and threatening people on private forums for talking unfavorably about their product or the company as a whole.
Of course the internet isn't a public place. If it were, I'd be in jail a million times over for public indecency.
I think an interesting analogy to make here would be to the underlying processes & protocols every web interaction uses. Essentially, every time you visit a website, you send a little piece of text saying “GET ” and the server says “200 Here it is” (major oversimplification, but it will do). The important thing to note is that for every interaction, it requires both cooperation between your machine and the server. The server is under no obligation to send you the information you want, nor do you have to accept any information you don’t want (ads, for example).
This is nice because it means that viruses don’t auto download every time you connect to the internet (something we probably all take for granted), but it also means that every other computer can ignore you if they decide you’re the real virus, and that’s the tradeoff.
However, most of the time we depend on another machine to set the rules for our web interactions, be it social media or other sites. This make sense, as the typical user doesn’t want to worry about managing a site, but it also means they give up most of their control to other machines. If we truly wanted the internet to be a public place, every person’s machine would need to occupy the role of both server and client. You could send resources directly to the IP address of the user, and they could send resources directly to you. And just like being in a public place, you’d have to decide what voices/machines you want yours to listen to and what voices/machines you want to ignore.
Of course, such a thing is never going to happen until IPv6 is implemented everywhere.
Very well-told and reasonable views on the internet and free speech. Far too many people don't seem to understand about free speech and private property. A restaurant, for example, is clearly a private place, not a public place, even though the "public" is invited to the restaurant.
The internet is largely private and of course, is not made up of actual places, but virtual places. It makes it easier for us to think of internet sites as places, when they're really just files sitting on server computers located almost anywhere in the world.
For people who are concerned about free speech in private places and private sites, this is where the importance of competition comes in. Social media sites succeed by having lots of people on their sites, and if the sites are unduly restrictive or have other problems, the sites will suffer by loss of "customers" or people you use their site. Reasonable expectations, as you explained so well, are very important to social media sites.
My expectations of the Internet, in no particular order, but in ordered list format:
1) Nothing you say on the Internet is private.
2) Companies are trying to make money off you.
3) People will mock you.
4) You are being watched/tracked.
5) The physical disconnect doesn't necessarily keep you physically safe. Be careful who you piss off.
Basically, the Internet is so scarily public I sometimes question if using it is a good idea. I know some of my points are very similar, but I feel the distinctions are important.
NSA snooping aside, you're allowed to say anything in a phone call, even though what you say is going thru private property (and in some cases, you don't even own the device used to connect to that private property).
After a certain size, sites need to be treated the same way (at least when that doesn't conflict with the explicit purpose of the site).
One big part of your argument ignores that anyone anywhere can simply create their own website. You are attached to the idea that the internet is somehow limited to what we currently have as if new the internet in its current form is all we have and ever will have. The sites may be public, but the internet itself - the system in which these things exists, is public.
Also, you seem to ignore that idea that 'freedom of speech' is a part of the social contract and that sites that say they support freedom of speech (like Twitter) need to called out when they are inconsistent with that value.
Here's an idea:
How about your OWN place in this?
Your videos are simply so deeply interesting and worthy of such endless contemplation that I never have enough time to respond before the comment responce videos come out, but not this week. Its too important this week, so I need to at least haphazardly put something together here. I have seen every episode of Idea Channel. I love it intensely and watching it is invariably the intellectual highlight of my week, every week. You have absolutely changed the way I look at all the universe and are the only entity therein that, consistently and without fail, renders me speechless.
I would say that this channel itself is a public service, but really, its something more than that. Calling PBS Idea Channel merely a public space or service (process?) is somehow an understatement. I feel like what this channel so consistently projects into humanity, the subset that watches it anyway, somehow transcends the more mortal value of google or twitter.
Idea channel is something more on par with wikipedia, but with a journalistic layer of boiling down, assessing, and revealing the true nature of a thing. Its like the ultimate love-child of wikipedia and NPR, is personified in Mike Rugnetta. The importance of your contribution to the internet itself cannot be overstated. This is readily evidenced in precisely what you mentioned, all those people tagging Idea Channel as their favorite youtube channel.
So I'm curious Mike, since you occupy a suprizingly important corner of this place/not-a-place/process, what is your take on /your/ value as a public fourm/moderator for the deep concepts that drive humanity, the concepts you bring to the forefront for so many who would never think of such things without your tacit urging? What sort of responsability, if any, do you feel /you/ have as one of the few drivers of deep, meaningful thought left in the world?
I like to think of it as a 1950's style mega-suburb. Where every house doubles as a billboard, there's a drunk house wife on every other lawn yelling obscenities, and the roads are made of lightning. And the only guy who knows where anything is... is some retired 60 year old surfer dude. Who buried 7000 miles of fiber lines back in the 90's.
Thank you. It IS a schooner.
I think that every place that is governed by some kind of government that has free speech enforced by some kind of law should have a public website where free speech on the internet is guaranteed.
What I find interesting is what this means for our ideals as a country. With almost all of America spending time in not public places where our public rules don't apply, have we essentially undone democracy? If the only space that we express our opinions and create social movements is through private companies, we're essentially back to a monarchy or empirical system. They have full control over most of our communication with others and if they decide to silence people who speak against them, it's no different than a king executing those charged with treason against the crown.
As someone who grew up on forums like proboards and the like, one of the things I've learned to do is look at the rules first whenever I "go" somewhere new. Though you may be free to browse the threads and, if it's available, speak in the chat room, your speech is limited to what the moderators and admins will allow for the forum. These days many forums have a ratings system to uphold to keep the host of that forum from revoking it from the owners. Years ago that was not the case and my childhood innocence was exposed to some not so child friendly things. The change, this limiting of free speech, was for the safety of the communities.
Much like joining a club in school or going to an open house party, you are invited but your actions and words are monitor for the sake of the community. If you are openly aggressive or unforgiving in making others uncomfortable expect the same attitude back and even possibly the ban hammer coming down on you in full force. In a sense, they are inviting you in with the expectation that you will not attempt to disrupt the flow of the site or destroy it outright.
Any "public space", mall, park, or otherwise, it is there for everyone. And people have a reasonable expectation to have a peaceful and enjoyable time. If you blast your radio in a relatively quiet neighborhood, you'll receive a noise complaint, public roads or not. If you aggressively preach on a sidewalk in front of a store, expect a complaint or two from the store owner, even expect to have the cops called.
True free speech, free of judgement and restraint would be akin shouting in the middle of the woods where no one is around. Hard, if not impossible to find without a knowledge of where those places might be. The woods are, often times, still owned by somebody after all. Much like real life, public spaces on the internet are not actually freely public, they are funded either by private individuals or entities/companies/organizations/etc or are funded by the government or it's community and thus are monitored by them. To think that any space on the internet, baring the privacy of your own messengers/emails/etc (much like the privacy of your own home), is truly for unlimited free speech is to ignore the fact that those spaces are owned and paid for by other people. And those people have a right to block your speech if they find it doesn't match the needs of their space.
I remember one time waiting for the bus. At the same stop, a woman was on her phone screaming at the person on the other end about something that person did. Only hearing the one side, it seemed the woman was incensed by the fact the other person had gone to the woman's Facebook page and read something the woman had posted. While Facebook is not an outright public space, given it's restrictions and enforced user guidelines, the idea still seemed strange. With over 1 billion people using the site I think one should post as though it were effectively a public space; at least in considering who will have access to what one posts. Even using Facebook's privacy settings one should exercise some discretion.
I'd say the Internet is a public place, I mean if your account is private (Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook. etc) then it's a private - semi-private, it's kind of like your house, say your house is your private Twitter account, people can ask if they can come in (follow) and you can accept it and invite them in or you can deny them access. But if you have a public Twitter then it's like a park where people can come and go if they like, stay a while, etc.
While not really related to the idea in this video, I would say that websites, specifically but not limited to social media, can act as a public space in the sense that everything said and done can be captured or recorded by screenshots and other methods, by anyone with access to them. This is similar to the 'privately owned public places' in the way that while you are in that space, it is allowed that you be recorded without prior permission. This is different from private people in private places, where it is not lawful to record or to use things recorded of individuals in private places without their consent.
After watching one of the most interesting videos on the Internet:) I can emphasize that, yes, the Internet is indeed a "big hole" in which you can find everything you need, even information you are not looking for. The main problem with the Internet is that everything is available, and it doesn't matter who you are. The Internet doesn't care about your ideological preferences and needs. The Internet can't protect you or give you 100% privacy of your information. As the video's author says, the Internet is like a big public place like shopping malls. I can't offer solutions to different problems right now. Still, for the problem mentioned above of privacy, I recommend taking responsibility for the information you receive from the websites and the obligation to limit children and teenagers from anything that can break their psyche. I like the aspects the author covers and how he made this video with resources and information that can be used to understand the issue accurately.
An important difference I would make between the internet and a physical public space is the mode of access. Big public spaces even have public transportation which is (supposed to be?) affordable, whereas internet access can be more restriced based on location and socie-economic situation. But perhaps the places where general internet access is low also have bad public transportation....so the equation holds.
The matter is simple: If I can find at least one other person who agrees that a shopping centre/web site/whatever is a public place, then it IS a public place. It's exactly the same principle as money: If I can find at least one other person to treat my new currency as valuable, then it IS valuable.
Free speech rarely ever listened to. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. For example, almost all audiences will either fight or flee from a comment that they disagree with, which in turn creates a certain atmosphere that the host may not appreciate. For that reason, it is up to the host of the "location" to dictate the type of communication s/he wants to allow.
Take this channel for example. It is inherently understood by the topics and respect presented by the staff that all conversations are credible as long as long as we respect each other. In contrast, a video by an advocate democrat or republican would expect only supporters to agree with them any all other comments would be considered "troll-y" and thus not acceptable.
In the end, there isn't much that can be done if someone wants to post juvenile bile that is meant to insult the worst of us, but it is also the right of the host to ban them for it. So in summary:
You can have free speech everywhere (including the internet), but with it will come the inevitable repercussions. Although you might not be "breaking the law" doesn't mean that you won't get punished for your actions.
The author's use of a video essay is presented in a straightforward way, exploiting the advantages of a video format by implementing gifs and short clips to help the audience better understand the topic, and to add humor that keeps the essay interesting. Another way that this author can present his essay is by using animations. Using animations not only will help keep the audience engage, but also can present complex ideas in a clear way. Animation can be harder to create than a webcam format but using animation can help spread the author's viewpoints across easier and clearer. I agree with the video argument on how the internet is not a free space, since most sites are privately owned. I like it how the author makes good comparison between real life cases regarding public areas to the internet version of public space. The internet is a free space, but the private websites have control over what content they want to publish, so these websites like Facebook and Twitter would not be violating the First Amendment right if they delete posts that could lower their revenue. What this author should keep doing is to keep using memes and gifs in his essay because this provides the audience with humor, which keeps the essay interesting. Also, the simple images and graphs helps makes his argument clearer by providing a visual element that supports his points. Overall, this video is done professionally, and the argument is well-supported with valid supports and logical evidences.
I'm glad I'm not the only who feels we should address this problem with the Internet. Good on ya Mike!
it has to be considered semi public/private. Access is controlled to a degree. You need to have funds for the most part to be able to afford a device and pay your ISP. There is free entry but this is limited to certain points in time and actual space.
Publicness/privateness is a spectrum not a dichotomy. It ranges from tightly controlled completely closed off areas to areas where literally no one seems to care whether you're there or what you do there.
The way i think of it is in a sort of hierarchy of parks in NYC. You have Bryant, Central and Washington Square . Washington Square is a the freest. You'll find a lot of hippies, care free people doing as they please . it also looks a bit less spick and span. Unscheduled events are a lot more permissable as they are in Boston common. In the past, when the city itself was less well off and relaxed in terms of policing you'd see some crazy shit going on in Greenwich village.
Central park is next where it's a lot more well known, much more heavily used so it has to be better policed but it still looks sort of wild and whatever's going on there can still be seen to be spontaneous but bryant park is at the other extreme where it still has a claim as a public space but this is just a technicality because it's much more ordered by a management committee, it looks cleaner, better off and scheduled. (maybe a teeny bit exclusive)
the internet , or some of its politically motivated communities, have pretensions of being like washington square (in the 70s) when really it's like bryant or at leats the mainstream of it is.
You're not going to meet just anybody here. You're going to meet people who are better off , law abiding citizens and illegal activity does not last long unless its something the authorities don't very much care about.
if the internet was a city, the parts we all care about and use would be the main thoroughfares - YT, FB, Google etc would be on times square. Although you'd see a lot fewer vagrants and undesirables than in a real city because of those barriers to access (ISPs, apple price tags). Still it's technically public as anyone can access if they meet the criteria and everyone has a right to meet the criteria (unless they're in china).
there's a toll and legal agreements for using the internet. there;s no toll to walk the streets but there are plenty of exclusionary mechanisms (like price of transport, police presence) that more than match those of the internet and we still consider our cities public. Both "places" have their seedy underbellies too.
The opportunities that expand access and mobility throughout real places and virtual places are the same too. Education and economy.
the internet might not be all public but neither are our streets and we still consider them free.
Both internet and cities are processes. Cities are made of granite and glass but nothing stays the same
in web places and real places alike (both public and private) it's less often the authorities that control content as it is the users/pedestrians/customers interacting with each other. the authorities have a vital role in determining who gets into those categories of users/pedestrians/customers but places can still be taken over and subverted from their owner's intended use .
Two thoughts:
1) The internet is a public place. It is the "highway" you travel down to get to privately held destinations. This has implications in terms of providers throttling or limiting your access. You are paying for access to the public space and they are changing not the access rights, but the fees attached to continue service.
2) Can the Fed remove citizen comments from a government internet destination? Since that government destination is technically public, and assuming the post was not impersonating a government official, my free speech should overrule any policy they have put in place. Thoughts?
This is an interesting discussion, and I generally agree with your conclusions. With regards to the publicity of online discussion "spaces" though, it's important to remember that the wider Internet (beyond the Web) is a fundamentally distributed system. Computers can message each other directly (and can even establish groups, consensus, etc. through protocols), and so there's no real reason why a distributed, digital equivalent to a completely public space couldn't exist online.
I don't understand why early on in this video your central idea about freedom based on the context space, then refers to the internet as a service of functions. I believe you are correct that the internet is a place because the space is on a digital format. Its coded nature feels metaphysical but still is space and is measured by time more than 3D landscape. Space exists to support function. And yes to communicate freely is dependent on the parameters defined by the authority of space. It is sad that many people have forfeited democratic planning over to private interests because the image of so much privatized commerical space reinforces the perceived unstoppable power of a private entity. Not only is speech controlled but choice and action too are delegated. The internet platforms are spaces made for discourse but are subject to censorship be it profanity, racism, or just...nude breasts? Just like how we should advocate for physical space as communal instead encapsulated by certain rules internet spaces are the same. Maybe as programming tools become more user friendly and more people code there will not be a need for privatization and the ideal model of a free internet will actually exist because it is built by thinkers no venture capitalists.
There's a pretty big difference between a shopping mall and Twitter, though. That being that one of them is specifically designed to be a forum for speech. If a private company builds a physical building for the purpose of allowing people to come and express their views, would it be OK for them to eject people for expressing the "wrong" views?
It's interesting that this is the direction you went with this (to what degree should the internet be a platform for free speech). When I first saw the title I thought it would go in the opposite direction: to what degree can/should you be held responsible for what you do on the internet (both professionally (for example, the Salaita case), and personally (do you have a right to anonymity? if not, when and where does it break down?)). Being held responsible for your actions on the internet would give it more of a sense being a place, at least to my intuition. Part of being a public space is that you can be seen at least as much as you can see, and you need to act as though you can be seen.
Hope this makes sense, and thank you for another interesting idea.
My opinion is that the Internet works like a
Semi-Public Space :
"A place which is public to people and imposes a set of common, and universally acceptable rules regarding their behavior i.e. a museum, library, theater."
Although universally acceptable is a debatable term in this case
Also on the internet's placehood I would consider it an alternate dimension with different rules defining what a place is.
Mike I think the fact that you sign (or don't read but still accept) terms of services and those documents make sure that these sites aren't public spaces. Especially in the US there aren't terms of services you agree to when you are on and act on public spaces.
I agree that privately owned websites should not be considered 'Public Spaces' and they should have every right to manage or remove user-submitted content and/or comments. Luckily, as mentioned in the video, there are many privately-owned sites that rare or never do these things, because they understand the potential damage of such censorship. They allow themselves to be places of free-speech, because it's in their best interest to do so. It's not forced on them by a government body.
I, for one, prefer it this way.
There is also the fact that you never speak directly to someone on the internet, you speak to the website and ask it to give that message to the person in which you intend to speak too, but every message you and everyone else on the internet sends must go through a server.
6:43 FYI, it's "U.S. District Court of Delaware", more formally "U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware" - but definitely not "District U.S. Court of Delaware". (And yes, D.D.C. is formally "U.S. District Court for the District of the District of Columbia". Not to be confused with about a dozen other courts in D.C., both courts for the quasi-state itself and federal courts.)
Web servers have owners. When I own a wedding I can remove what ever I want from it that people post to it. Just like I kick someone out of my place of business.
but I can't go into someone elses business and kick out people I don't like either.
A place where anyone can (and do) say whatever they want (with only minor rules): 4chan's /b/
A place where you are at the whim of the host: Facebook, RUclips, etc.
See what is in common here? In either case, you have to follow social conduct guidelines and you will be called out for saying something outlandish, stupid, wrong, etc. There is nowhere you can communicate with others online (or offline for that matter) where you are above some form of pressure to behave in a certain manner. It is either a private entity forcing you to do so or the people themselves become the private entity.
It makes me think, are there any sites on the internet that are 'true' public forums?
just look and you will find them, but they could be in the deep web, so it may be hard to reach.
On the highly-visible, easily-accessible area(s) of the internet? Probably not. As another comment here pointed out, most of those sorts of sites are driven to some extent by money, which tends to require some amount of moderation to keep the site palatable to investors/advertisers. Reddit may come close; 4chan (and its ilk) looks, to this outsider, like is may come closer. Otherwise, you'll probably have to venture farther off the beaten paths: IRC, Usenet groups, TOR, etc.
Always imagined internet """"""places"""""" to be more like a hotel? You got your lobbies, event spaces, playrooms, swimming pools that all seem quite public, but there are also smaller spaces that give the feel of intimate privacy (to varying degrees of eroticism I guess). When you're having that chat with your pals about Bionicle or something and someone barges into your room and threatens to kill you for not shipping Kopaka/Pohatu, you feel like you have been assaulted, invaded even, in a very "unheimlich" kind of way. The invader might feel that they were 100% in their rights to barge in due to free speech, and the owner of the hotel might well wring their hands and do nothing about it.
It feels like a microcosm of public space with private space in it, and perhaps it gets even more fractal than that. Homes and parks all the way down.
I disagree - virtual places are also places. They aren't located in the physical world even if they can be located in a country in terms of what laws apply to it. But we think of them as places, our memory compartmentalise them as we do places, etc. We go back and forth between physical places all the time and two people visiting the same physical location can experience it in very different ways. Someone else going to the same restaurant as I but with different company, different expectations, different food choices etc. is likely to get a very different experience for instance.
I think my point is made well by the fact that throughout the fact you yourself keep coming back to talking about places online as locations even when you try not to. It's simply easier to accept thinking of them as such than trying to not relate to them as anything coherent at all.
Even as a non public space, the internet has allowed us to get as close as we've ever been to direct democracy since Greece, as it allows for public opinion to be manifested through individual voices much better, faster and directly than any other media before it.
I have Kafakaesque reactions to shopping malls. As a kid i was often harassed by the security at shopping malls, no reason, i was a very well behaved child, never stole or vandalized anything. As far as i could tell, it was simply because i was a kid and this apparently meant i was upto no good.
As an adult i still try to avoid going into large corporate areas like malls, amusement parks and airports.
There is an ugly flipside to a lack of free speech in areas owned by a private company: the company can profile, target, and harass you in ways that - in a public or government space - you'd expect to be legally protected from.
Authoritarian sub-societies are all nice & safe & secure feeling, until *you're* the one they're turning on. God help us if Zuckerberg, Page or Dorsey don't like the cut of our jib.
This is actually why I believe that private property is incompatible with free speech. (And I mean that in the sense that "private property" is when you own something so that others can use it for your profit, as opposed to personal property, which is owning something you use yourself.)
RUclips needs to work on making sure it's community guidelines are consistently followed. I understand that there are too many users to catch every single violation of the guidelines but it's clear that the most subscribed people on RUclips (I.E. the really obvious, visible and the easiest to uphold those guidelines on) are immune to the guidelines. A good example being that Their videos are not age restricted when they should be but if another channel uses clips from their videos they get age restricted even when the express purpose was to point out that the content was inappropriate.
In relation to the "place" part of the question, To Hie from Far Cilenia is an interesting story that kind of explores the ideas of society dislodged from location, using the internet, like internet communities functioning in meat space.
I think a big part of the part of the problem with the whole "We are a private entity, keep it to public space" is...Well, what public space? You've already absorbed all the public space. You're already positioning yourself in the space where a public space would be, maybe should be, and acting surprised when we can feel the resulting void. Are there even any significant public spaces on the internet?
5:00 I was thinking Pennsylvania Station in New York, before 1963. The public treated it as a forum and meeting place for the public to enjoy, but it was still very much private property, hence why most of it was torn down...the owners wanted to make more money by optioning off the air rights, against the public's will.
I think another interesting ramification of seeing/ not seeing the Internet as a public space is the effect on surveillance. At least in the UK one of the defences for CCTV networks is that they are in public spaces and hence the government has the right to watch you for illegal use of the public space. If you believe that the Internet is the responsibility of the community or the state, it could be used to defend government surveillance online. Likewise if it's a privately owned public space, like the mall, then the companies who 'run' the Internet have a right to spy on what your doing.
I feel like people often forget that websites are private entities that are able to control the flow of information if they choose to. Almost makes me feel like federal government should create a "public space" on the internet where free speech is actually protected.
Complex concept, nice explainer!
I'm not sure if I'd really like changes on this matter, though one thing I really agree with is that people should be more well informed on the topic.
Unfortunately, like explored on the video, the situation Internet might have created is that in cyberspace, there effectively are no public spaces. It begins by having access via a private company after all (ISPs). All the content you are getting access to will have some form of private company behind. Even services and pages of non-profit organizations and even governmental agencies sometimes have to be hosted on a private company.
At least I never heard of a social gathering service, webpage, forum and whatnot maintained with public money and regulated by the government in which people can go an talk about whatever they want to.
So while in the real world protesters could still go out of the mall to protest in a public park while being protected by the first ammendment, there are no such guarantees on the Internet... might be wrong here, if anyone knows about something like that let me know.
Which isn't to say there are no social networks, websites, and portals overall that will pretty much follow the basis of free speech. Just that it's simply not guaranteed by law, making it at most, a promise.
This also doesn't mean that private services can do whatever they want... they are still bound by law in some form or way. Remember that whatever contract you estabilish with the service once you start using it, will be backed by law for good or bad.
There's already a whole lot of misconceptions about the basic terms... public places, freedom of speech, censorship, first ammendment and whatnot. They are quite oftenly misused, misunderstood, applied in scenarios they were not designed to.
For instance, freedom of speech relates to fear of retaliation from the government. It's not a free pass to say whatever you want to about whatever subject without being held responsible for it, and even freedom of speech has restrictions, usually around the types of speech that are either criminal, or in violation of previously estabilished contracts.
Public spaces, even though the concept gets intertwined with freedom of speech, relates more to non-paid access to citizens on spaces designed to serve as social gathering places for... the public. Real controversies on this subject arises in cases like private spaces blocking access to public ones (common example: closed private communities blocking access to public beaches).
Censorship is more of a concept made to understand what is happening in certain scenarios... it's not law. And the first ammendment has a broader definition, designed to encompass a broader range of citizen's rights. But it's always good to reinforce that none of those are designed to lift responsibilities, or allow criminal activity. You cannot make a terrorist threat, become accomplice to crime, harass, slander, make life threats among other stuff thinking the first ammendment, freedom of speech, freedom of press, or that being in a public space will protect you in any way or form. Freedom of speech is not freedom of responsability.
Back on topic, there is something to be said about wanting public spaces on the Internet too. Sure, it's worrying that all the "spaces" or services we use on the Internet, specially social networks, being all private. But it's not all that bad. You don't always want the government encroaching with regulations on every social space out there, much like you really wouldn't want your home or your work defined as a public space.
Enforcing terms of services and user agreements is far easier if you don't have to throw government in the mix too. Most of the services we know and use today could not work well enough if it depended on governmental regulation, and to always go through law to apply penalties and such.
And the first ammendment leaves out a whole set of ettiquetes, estabilished social rules, content management, and whatnot out of the equation. Moderation would be pretty useless if you cannot enforce internal rules.
The downside is that we always have to check every service if they are not abusing the fact that it's a private one to push unfair rules towards it's costumers. And for sure, sometimes private services go too far, or do too little. These big companies that controls all the spaces most people nowadays use, can be pretty opaque at times.
Stuff like using personal data for commercial gain without warning users, putting systems in place that flag content without warning automatically applying harsh penalties, CEOs being overzealous in certain subjects choosing to outright ban people who don't agree with them... happens a lot.
I know about it... a comment of mine was flagged recently for containing malware by RUclips. I just received a general warning, but I dunno where that came from, I couldn't find the source of it, and I never post links here that are not from trusted sources (I rarely post links at all), so I'm left in the dark to wonder why the heck I was accused of that. I submitted a complaint, and didn't hear back so far. I can only imagine I was either flagged by some troll, the automated system wrongfully detected something in a comment of mine that it classified as malware, or I really did post malware somewhere but I cannot find or remember where (RUclips basically doesn't have a system for you to see and check all your comments in a given period of time).
So... I guess awareness is key. I don't see an easy solution for this, but it's the situation we are currently in.
the words you type on your computer and get "processed" through the mechanisms of the Internet end up in a "place"...my living room for example. Therefore, the words you process on the Internet are both private and public. Private when it's a one on one communication like e-mail, public when they're on an entertainment channel that is accessible to anyone like RUclips. Public spaces like parks also have restrictions. For example, I can't drink beer naked in the park behind my apartment. Does that mean it's not a public place?
The Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins case brings another interesting dimension to this conversation - location and placehood as they interact with state law.
Bandcamp, as you mentioned, is based within California, which according to the case explicitly protects free speech even on private premises. However, the nebulous nature of the internet makes it difficult to determine when a person is subject to this specific ruling. When the speaker is in California? When the company hosting it is? When the server being used is in California? There is no consistent "location" to apply here, as all three can be in separate places at once. As the Internet grows in influence, laws influenced by borders become more difficult to apply, and we're finding more and more situations where the law applicable to a certain situation is simply... indeterminable.
3:35 and 11:02 well played Idea Channel, well played.
Technically privately owned. The American people should hold all places meant to be the 'public' (not legally) space as though it weren't private: I wouldn't mind a shop owner wanting someone out of their store, but I'd rather the mall proper to be that public area for the people.
Anything that invites people to come with no bars held besides legal ones should be considered the people's space, otherwise it'd be closer to a small sovereign state owned by the mall.
Or, any forum that decides some ideas are more equal than others is not public. What good is a forum that isn't public unless it has a very specific topic in mind: cinema, cooking, a specific story, etc.
Excellent episode. Indeed inaction from companies, is profitable/the best course of action, yet immoral. You should do an episode on how companies allow us to perform immoral actions (as a community), thanks to their impersonal nature.
The internet is simply a series of digital channels that require different levels of authorization. Where a "public" channel requires the lowest form of authentication which is just a valid ip, or basically nothing. Their interconnectedness varies and even how one navigates to a specific channel could be part of their authentication as their accessibility varies.
Reasonably Sound idea drawn from this episode: is it possible to have a private conversation in a public place? Or perhaps it's more possibly to be private the more public of a place you are in
The internet operates as a universal mind palace. I never thought of it that way before. Thank you, Mike.
Anybody read Dan Simmons' 1989 "Hyperion?" #SpoilerAlert
The farcaster portals are used as a physical metaphor for the internet. This is made especially poignant when the AI reveal they have been using the space between the portals as their secret realm of artificial life (in an attempt to build god). Dan Simmons essentially perdicts/describes cloud space. After all, 3d printing has already begun to literalize the abstract nature of the internet. To correlate the no man's sky video with this one, It's too bad the "all things are both real/not real, private/public" argument doesn't hold up in a court of law.
I think this debate applies to social media platforms most readily. There has been suit after suit after suit filed against messaging platforms like Facebook or Twitter because they either wanted to silence someone else's usually harmless or justified opinion, or to ensure they're the vocal ones in some way (usually by some form of silencing). This factors into the rough ethics of safe spaces and whether or not they're allowable, helpful, damaging, or even a violation of free speech. I believe that we need to defend free speech on the internet in anyway we can, lest we lose it in the real world; for better or worse, we have allowed the internet to define the standard for the so-called "most free" speech possible, and that's a rather harmful thing. However, since every single website (arguably even government-run sites) are private in some way, we have absolutely no right to it.
This leads to a harsh ethical dilemma. If we deem it important to defend something others have a full right to take away, how could we justify that as moral? If it's immoral to protect a right we technically don't have, is it also immoral to expect this privelege so many places have given us? Why would it be justified, or not justified, to take such a stance? Does morality and ethics have any impact in the law's decision, possibly overturning what is completely correct and even expected under the basis of our judicial system? And if so, would we need to change the law to accommodate this?
All considered, it's wholly dishonest to say the law perfectly reflects accepted standards for good ethics. Thus, it's also dishonest to say the law is inherently fair or justified in its decisions or actions. You could also expect the law enforcement to have different standards than the law itself; for example, if a woman calls in that she's being attacked by her husband the man gets arrested for questioning. If a man calls in that he's being attacked by his wife, it's also standard practice that the man gets arrested for questioning. Different causes, same outcome. This is no more justified under the constitution than the discrimination and forced servitude of blacks, or the discrimination and unfair treatment of women, both of which continue in some form today. So, to protect free speech on what has inaccurately been deemed the "most free" place for speech, would we then need to tackle the law itself, fight what our entire society has been based on? And if we fight to change the laws, who's to say we won't end up with something worse, like so many failed revolutions of mankind's past?
Ultimately the logic that the internet is either public or private leads us in unbearable circles, and will never lead to any rational answer. I don't have any defense or justification for my own viewpoint other than the above twisty logic, but here's my own viewpoint regardless:
Yes, the internet IS a private place. It's collectively the private property of all those who use and understand it, with a legal and functional preference toward those who hold the servers but a severe emphasis on and necessary slant towards those who use yet do not own the aforementioned servers. By placing a server, some information or a service on the internet, you bequeath some small or large form of ownership to those who use the system, with a rather harsh yet necessary mob/majority rule. Functionally, the site must work with those around it or be shunned by those around it... no one uses a broken or overpriced system (well, less than usual do) unless it's the only way to get that service. If it's the only way to get that service, someone typically creates a competitor or successor in some way to fix the broken or overpriced system of the past. Thus, you cannot say that those who own the sites have full rights to it, even if by an unfortunately backhanded and crude string of logic.
So is the internet private, especially with "public" social sites? Eh... it's a give and take scenario. The public gives to the service in some ways to be able to use said service, but the service needs to give some things back to the public to have a public that uses it I'm the first place. The notion that the internet is wholly private is legally true, technically true... but in practice and by core functionality, could never be true.
+
Actions by non-governmental actors cannot be a violation of free speech as it exists in American law. The first amendment explicitly restricts the power of congress, and by extension any government entity established by congress, and by later amendments state governments. But it explicitly does not regulate the actions of private citizens and corporations.
If you visit a site that has no means to interact with other people it's place in sense a book is a place. You immerse yourself in a world that the author has created for you. It's not a social public place but everyone can read it and visit the place on their own.
When you can interact with other people the publicness varies a lot. Like in real places. Is it a home, library or park?
I don't think individual sites have an obligation to or not to control what is or is not said up to but not including the point of bullying/harassment, threat, or other such behavior that could significantly affect someone's well-being. Another alternative, I think, could be to have a system similar to the health inspection system in place in restaurants, but for emotionally harmful behavior, including the requirement to post the grade the site gets in a very conspicuous place, such as under or next to the logo.
I just wanted to let you know that I think this was one of your best videos to date.
I've been thinking about this a lot because I've seen a friend of mine on RUclips getting hoards of harassing comments on their videos and I keep reporting a lot of the comments, but nothing much happens. I understand that RUclips is sort of a place for free expression, but when a youtuber with a fan base of maybe 600 is suddenly receiving thousands of hateful comments and dislikes by people who haven't actually watched the video, something needs to happen. I do think people should be able to express opposing opinions, even if I think those opinions are wrong or harmful. But, when a comment is only one word long, and that word is "F*ggot," I sort of lose sympathy. Harassment is violent. It is a forceful reminder of where LGBTQ+ people stand in the current matrix of social systems. I also think of how they had to disable comments on the #proudtobe video a few months ago. Idk, I guess I just think some people should lose commenting privileges on youtube if they're just harassing people, or the algorithm on youtube should push hateful comments down so that more positive or at least non-harassing comments stay afloat at the top. Does anybody have a different approach?
I realize youtube has poor reception with their own systems. But I can also say, most respected youtubers, especially minority youtubers, who get comments like this do one simple thing...
Don't delete, don't respond, just ignore and leave them there.
Speaking as a brony, Christian, and white male who loves protecting minorities but hates the Social Justice Warrior attitude, I have gotten a lot of hateful, spiteful, and blatantly false comments and complaints thrown at me. But speaking as a brony again, I would like to mention one of the biggest reasons the fandom is still growing to this day... simple hate speech.
If you place "brony" in the search bar, there are times when you can go pages and pages down and find nothing but cringe compilations. This is... literally the most common way new bronies find our show. And if you watch most of them, well... by showing a well-coreographed dance number in what should be a cringe compilation, they create just that many more people who say "this shouldn't be in a cringe compilation" and start defending us. In trying to defend us, they learn more about us and even befriend us (even if they wouldn't join themselves). Ultimately, the way we bronies have dealt with anti-bronies, outside of discussions amongst ourselves, is usually just to ignore and move on. We don't delete comments, we don't respond and argue, we move on.
It's the same for a minority. If they can see the comments that are little more than "faggot", they'll jump to the person's aid even if he won't need it. By simply not deleting these comments, simply not responding or reporting, just letting go, you arm a group of people who want to protect and support you.
All in all, the main reason so many minorities continue to get hate from edgy teenagers is because minorities have historically fought so hard to silence their opponents, and as of late have become quick to the offensive for even harmless comments.
The nature of free speech is that it gives everyone the right to voice their opinions, no matter how crude. It also gives you a right to be criticized, responded to, even attacked right back for any comments you make.
My advice? Tell your friend to let it go, no matter what the "it" may be. If he can calm himself, if he can speak respectfully and truthfully no matter how hard it may be, the truth shines through in the end. I've gotten death threats myself, on what used to be a regular basis. Just because he may have gotten more of them doesn't mean they should be handled any differently... in fact, it's even more imperative he treats them with a level, calm head, lest he lose himself in the commotion.
or you and your friend can act like adults and deal with the negative comments by ignoring them.
As a former co owner of a large gaming community who received hate and harassment on a daily basis (including DOXing, Death Threats, Swatting attempts, DDoS, etc I can safely say I understand where your friend is at.
However what you are proposing is a double edged sword in the past my community attempted censorship as a means to control. Needless to say it just adds more work for your moderators/admins (and trolls just make new accounts and keep on trollin) you also end up punishing people who are innocent due to rules needing to be vague because the subject matter of harassment is so broad and in particular with youtube and it's automation providing problems like false DMCA takedowns as well as their IMO completely broken content ID system will only serve to silence everyone.
Automated systems are the only way to go with a site as large as youtube but they shouldn't restrict speech (provided it isn't threatening). In the end people just need to realize that the entire reason you make videos is to share your ideas and grown your audience.
In a culture where freedom of expression is a cornerstone of the current zeitgeist you simply can't expect with billions of people having access to the internet that a significant portion won't like your content.
The best way to kill a bad idea is to give it an open platform and let it refute itself.
+Vissia yeah, because ignoring a problem is the number one way to make it go away.
Theo Hamilton Ignoring won't make it go away, of course not. Nobody is promoting flat out ignoring it. What we're all promoting is not letting it BOTHER you, something else entirely.
You missed what I consider to be a very important definition of "public space". The internet has a cost to access. Your average human has direct physical access to any number of public places without any entry fee. You might CHOOSE to drive or take a bus, but you can walk, for free, and enter, for free, as an example, the public park down the street.
Where, for the internet, you need given physical objects, computer, laptop, tablet, cellphone, etc. You need a reliable connection to electricity. You need to pay a service fee to be connected. Limited access to the internet, or some aspects of it, are available for free from libraries and similar institutions, but it's limited in both duration and scope.
I think the best real world comparison for The Internet is a Gated Community, many people live there and the places you visit are as public as the owner wishes them to be, but it is still someone's home and if you do something they don't like they have every right to ask you to follow a set of rules, make you to leave, or even let you in at all to begin with.
To me, whether the internet is a public place or not depends on the site/app/platform. In the physical world, there are some places where we consider ourselves to be "in public" (shopping malls, restaurants, amusement parks, etc.) that are actually private property, and thus those occupying that space are subject to the rules and regulations of the owners. The expectation should be the same for users of twitter, youtube, and facebook. Fortunately, there are a large number of communities on the internet, though most are privately owned, so one should have little difficulty finding a space where their speech is "legal".
Arguably my favorite episode so far
I ultimately agree with your conclusion, but I want to add another point of comparison between physical and internet "places": physical places are finite and limited, internet places are not. In other words, if a particular forum has really stringent rules about speech that you dislike, the cost for you to set up a space that does not is relatively low. Or, more to the point, it's possible to do so at all (and, as a consequence, your chances of finding a place with rules about speech that you like already in existence is also much higher). By contrast, if protest isn't allowed in the local mall, there may be no true alternative: you can't just create more land and even if there is available public space, it may be so geographically marginalized as to be irrelevant. This is a massively important thing to keep in mind given the increasing privatization of public space.
(This also holds true, I would argue, for certain kinds of internet spaces as well; I'm distinctly uncomfortable about the idea of google explicitly censoring search results, for instance. Although in some ways that's an entirely different conversation.)
(Also also: while I don't hold it against the video, I do feel like you skipped one of the most important parts of the public/private distinction: the expectation of privacy, which is a really fascinating issue online (and impinges heavily on the conversation you were focused on as well).)
Oh god. As I was watching this, I kept coming up with thoughts and questions... but then, as the video went on, and you brought in more nuances and counterarguments, I just got more unsure. The whole thing is terribly complicated, and connects into some really "big" questions and issues in society, and I barely even know where to start....
One thing that does occur to me, though, is that even putting the Internet aside for a moment, and thinking just of actual physical spaces, at what point do our public lives take place sufficiently within private spaces for those private spaces to start to become considered public? By which I mean, between my workplace being acres and acres owned and operated by a private entity, my home being the private property of the landlord / property management company, and pretty much all of my "third spaces" (e.g. cafés, shops) also being private property - like the shopping mall - where is truly left as public space? If you want to exercise your free speech rights, go do it on the sidewalk, where you're really disturbing people, and blocking the way? Do it in the middle of the street, where you're /really/ blocking the way? (And that's, of course, a whole conversation unto itself - protests blocking traffic, and so forth) Or do it in the public park, over there, ten blocks away, where (effectively) no one sees or hears it? .... What *is* the proper place for public discourse, and free speech rights, anyway?
And, while places like Times Square, for example, are not owned by any one company, I feel it conceivable that they could become that in the future. Is a train station, run by the semi-quasi-pseudo-governmental MTA a public space? ... If a public library is a public space, can you still exercise your free speech rights (at full volume, or with a megaphone, or with a huge crowd of protesters) there? Or do you have to be quiet? How do public and private universities really function differently, in terms of "community guidelines" versus being public/private spaces?
Anyway, I've gotten a bit off-topic. But, again, when the spaces where we spend our lives - both on and offline - are overwhelmingly private spaces, and free speech (and numerous other rights & privileges) remain restricted to increasingly-small, increasingly-peripheral, legally Public spaces... is(n't) that a problem? At what point does it become enough of a problem that societal consensus and/or court decisions might start to shift? And... should they? Which sorts of private spaces ought to start to be seen as public spaces, and which not?
Thought-provoking stuff as always. Thanks so much. Keep it up!
4:40 JOEL! ADAM!
I honestly don't know, but was this video at least partially inspired by the milo yinapolous ban and others similar to it?
TBH there is not a single month in internet history where people are not complaining about being censored so it would be topical no matter what.
Well that "great" buzzfeed article at the end sure seemed to appear topical to the issue.
This episode definitely had the lefty vibe to it which rustled my jimmies.
You can still be kicked out of a "public" space, such as a park, for "disturbing the peace" with your speech if it's particularly vulgar, distracting, or purposely upsetting. I think it's more accurate to think of the term "public" as a place in which you are making what you say and do available to everyone. If you can be seen by enough people, that it wouldn't be surprising if word got around, or someone took a video and put it on youtube, etc., then it's public. Invite 50 people to your house and make a speech in front of all of them, I'd still say you made that speech to the public, that is unless there is some sort of guarantee what you said would remain among those who were there.
Came to the video expecting a new "Semantics" episode, left pleasenlty surprised.
To the point and informative; thought provoking and interesting.
As others have mentioned i was thiking from the get go upon your mention of "places" not being acessible by everyone, that you would mention ISPs, because in order to acess any place whatsoever even if that place is indeed public, you still need to ahdere to ISP services.
Most solid argument to watch Mike Rugnetta so far, Mallrats .gifs