What is Digg?195 Comments
- Skipperdo, on 07/06/2008, -10/+90Even though I'm from America I'm tired of Americans thinking that just because they live and connect to the internet in America that somehow the WORLD WIDE Web is an extension of America and therefore people are guaranteed Freedom of Speech and all that other tripe.
Companies have a right to say what is used on their webspace and what isn't, just like they have a right to eject someone from their buildings.
Though I agree that this is ridiculous, its not because of "Free Speech". - terminalpariah, on 07/07/2008, -3/+73The text of the first amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Are these companies censoring you to comply with US law? Unless you're posting child porn or bomb-making instructions, probably not. It sucks to be censored, but if the government is not involved, it's not a violation of your First Amendment rights. You have to complain to Yahoo/Facebook/Digg or take your business elsewhere. - ImOscar, on 07/07/2008, -3/+45Exaclty. Buried as innacurate. These are not public spaces we are talking about. If I run a website I damn well be able to put up or take down whatever I want.
- h3smith, on 07/07/2008, -1/+43Since when does congress run the internet or any website you are on?
You are writing on private property and can be censored at any point in time.
Want to write whatever you want? Buy your own domain, pay for hosting, and write stuff no one will read anyway. - samdu, on 07/07/2008, -2/+34I think it has less to do with people thinking that the Web is an "extension of America," and more to do with a profound misunderstanding of the Constitution by most Americans. Most average Americans have the false impression that we, as citizens of the US, are guaranteed free speech across the board. But the Constitution only prohibits GOVERNMENT from infringing on freedom of speech. Any private entity can establish terms of service that limit free speech.
- relic180, on 07/07/2008, -1/+30Not sure what you were getting at exactly, but yes, they have the right to police their own content.
- cmccool, on 07/06/2008, -3/+28Here is Dors' picture of "an early-adolescent boy with disheveled hair and a ragged T-shirt, staring blankly with a lit cigarette in his mouth" that was banned, temporarily, by Yahoo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maartend/1429385268/i ...
So is Yahoo really the bad guy at the end of the day if the "banned" picture is up on the net now? The friction between acceptable and unacceptable "free speech" will always occur, I'm glad that Yahoo is at least reasonable enough to recognize when to "give." - relic180, on 07/07/2008, -0/+18If anything, this merely opens the doors a bit wider for the next generation of online social spaces which have fewer censoring policies. It's stupid of them but at least it's not something that businesses like yahoo can control, internet-wide.
- zacharytelschow, on 07/07/2008, -3/+20Companies are censoring content on their own websites for various reasons (so they won't be sued among them). La dee da. So freaking what? Buried as a waste of space.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -1/+18"Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces"
Seemingly public = private.
Buried for dumbness. - Ricky81682, on 07/07/2008, -1/+18To Relic, the article is saying that companies with "seemingly public spaces online" are wiping out content, and thus there is no "free speech" online. My point is that instead of seeing it as the right of individuals to post whatever they want, it's really a question of the right of companies to control their content.
Besides, "free speech" doesn't give you the right to be heard, just the right not to be interfered with. If you really want free speech, start your own server and do it. - Xihix, on 07/07/2008, -3/+19The only thing I learned from this article is that I can go to the park and yell about anything without getting in trouble. brb
- imolaavant, on 07/07/2008, -2/+17The text of the constitution tells the government, not private companies, how to act.
- swrostmore, on 07/07/2008, -1/+15"Average Americans" have the profound misunderstanding that the Consitution "grants" rights, such as freedom of speech. The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution recognizes fundamental rights that all people have (not just Americans), and prohibits the government from passing laws which infringe upon those rights.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -1/+15I think this is a great digg. I however am not sure what JESDANUN's point is. Is it supposed to be a new-flash that private companies have the right to set their own content standards just like companies set their own hiring standards? The DMCA is not carte blanche protection for these sites. The author is correct in stating that there is no constitutional protection for private speech. If someone wants unfettered speech, they can set their own blog, bulletin board etc, and host it themselves and take all the liabilities that go with it.
- imolaavant, on 07/07/2008, -2/+16Time for a quick civics lesson:
The constitution is a set of rules meant to limit government's powers. Its success or failure to that end is debatable, but in this case the constitution has no bearing. We're talking about companies and individuals interacting with each other, the constitution does not come into play because government does not come into play. If the government decided to start regulating the internet than you may be able to make a constitutional claim that rights were violated, but until that point, companies are not bound by the constitution, only the government is. - GeneralFailure0, on 07/07/2008, -1/+14That's a lot less artsy than I pictured it when I was reading the article. It actually just looks like some kid took a picture of himself smoking to show off like the thousands who do it on myspace all the time. If yahoo took it down thinking that and put it back up after the guy complained, there is no problem here.
- Otto, on 07/07/2008, -3/+15There is no "public" space on the internet. If you want to say what you want to say, then buy your own space and say it there.
Buried as *****. - JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -0/+11You have a right to say whatever you want.
Yahoo has the right to restrict use of their servers.
Your rights end where Yahoo's property begins.
OK, so where's the problem? - norman619, on 07/07/2008, -1/+11No ***** the poster and the article fail to understand posting on the internet is basically speaking your mind on private property. Just like you are not free to do/say as you like in a store like Best Buy. The public is welcomed but you must follow their rules or you WILL be kicked out.
- doowttam, on 07/07/2008, -0/+10There aren't really any "public" places on the internet. The analogy used in the first part of the article mentions a public park, a park no doubt that would be owned and operated by the government.
All of the "public" places talked about here are really private spaces, owned by corporations, that are freely accessible, there is a big difference.
If you bought a domain from GoDaddy, but then hosted it on your own server you'd be about as free as you can get (with the exception of your ISP which will still shut you down if they're unhappy with you.) - inactive, on 07/07/2008, -1/+11Yes.
Just as you have a right to throw people out of your house if they are being rude. You aren't required to have Klan members over to your house due to free speech concerns.
When you are unable to police your own site, then property rights become meaningless (or more so). Then the government starts deciding what is and isn't appropriate, not just one site but all of them. Now if Digg or Yahoo, ban you, you can go somewhere else, were this to apply you could not. - Ricky81682, on 07/07/2008, -0/+9Perhaps but some people will want their kids to be able to go to the "Disney filtered so you can't say anything" world too. There will just be different levels of censorship.
- dygel, on 07/07/2008, -0/+8From the article: "Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online..."
Therein lies the problem. "Public" spaces online are only public in the sense that they are exposed to the public. In terms of ownership, they are almost always private.
The internet is more like a billboard than a park. You may have the ability to write on that billboard (be it with your name attached, pseudoanonymously, or completely anonymously), but the board itself is owned by somebody private. It is not maintained by the tax payers. So if you write something on that billboard that is deemed disagreeable they reserve the property and usage rights to remove it.
People often mischaracterize the right to free speech. A lot of people presume it means that you have the right to say what you want (within the public safety restrictions), when you want. To the contrary, it means that you have the right to never be imprisoned for the expression of your opinions. The First Amendment is a contract between the government and the governed, not any two individuals or companies.
We're a country of entrepreneurs. If you're fed up with seemingly "public" online spaces taking down your political cruft, roll your own blog. - JCPahl, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9Yeah, it's pretty scary to realize that many Americans believe rights are things the government gives you; maybe that's why Bush & Co. have gotten away with all they have. No, dumbasses, it's called a "right" because you don't need it granted to you. Freedom of speech is recognized, not given. Anyway, I logged in just to digg you up.
- Mononuclear, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9Yahoo has every right to censor you. If you want to post your pictures or use your free speech you can run your own web server and post whatever you want on there. Then again your ISP or webhost might take it down.
There is no such thing as public space on the internet. You have to go through many different private businesses to surf the web and any one of them can censor you if they want. If one company is too harsh then you should find another. - AlanFang, on 07/07/2008, -1/+8This article ignores the fact the majority of the internet isn't publicly owned, but actually owned by private companies. Private companies have the right to delete whatever content they want on their sites. Even with these private organizations there is plenty of opportunity for free speech online, otherwise how would sites promoting racial hatred or pictures of men stretching their anuses stay up? Freedom of speech does exist on the internet, and it is what makes it a great place.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7I agree.
Since when is YAHOO or GOOGLE a public forum ?
Hell even DIGG isnt a public forum.
You can have your own domain and website and THEN you might call it public. - Hangly, on 07/07/2008, -1/+8What does this have to do with "free speech?" It's a private property issue, not a first amendment issue.
Also I think some of us may have just been put on notice. - benologist, on 07/07/2008, -2/+8I for one am shocked most websites and service providers aren't interested in assuming responsibility and liability for what their users say and do.
What is this world coming to when you're not welcome to use a business as your podium to say and do whatever you want, letting them eat the risk of prosecution while you hide behind anonymity? - ninesky01, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7i can understand all of this. it reflects on the corporate image. unfortunately we all know how image conscience everyone is. all people do it... all companies do it... it's the way it is...
so, build your own server! then you get to do whatever you want! yeah!
for a simple and cheap way to do it, you may want to check out two companies:
http://www.rimuhosting.com/
http://www.slicehost.com/
PEACE - Devrdander, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6When i use to run an IRC server years ago i would get all kinds of idiots claiming they have a right to free speech. Then i would have to use my big IRCop Clue Bat and show them that its a privately operated server and the US Constitution doesn't extend that right to my server. My goal was to keep the majority happy on the server and settle disputes peacefully. The more users i got the more potential money I could make off advertisements on the web client, the motd, and the website help pages.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -2/+9This is a ***** stupid article, "seemingly public spaces" are not public spaces. It is a space owned by a company and they have every right to take down what they want. It's like walking into a company's headquarters and shouting "I hate ......" they have every right to eject you.
- bradhart2, on 07/07/2008, -3/+9Here is another post dealing with the business side of it and calls any blogger a hypocrites who uses spam protection and then whines about freedom speech crackdowns
http://bradtheblogboy.com/hosting/cya-for-bloggers ... - MariusAgricola, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6Yahoo and all the other providers end up being the bad guys by thinking they can be the arbiters of decency. While I respect their right as a private enterprise to remove content they feel is inappropriate, I think that getting involved in this kind of game in the first place puts them in an awkward and untenable position.
- deadmoo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5I was just going to post something similar. In a US context: The company run websites are private property, they set the rules. They would have to be a government regulation forcing them to have free speech, if that is want people want. The necessity of such a regulation is debatable, however, since it is a free market. If you don't like the censorship policy of an online forum, just switch to another online forum.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5The word "public" doesnt mean what the story seems to think it does.
- thepxc, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6Considering that the WWW was born in the USA, grew up in the USA, and retains most of its infrastructure in the USA, and also the penetration of Internet-enabled PCs in the USA as compared to elsewhere, it's not surprising that the 'net/WWW sometimes seems USA-centric.
For better or for worse, that's the way it is.
As a side-note, I expect to retain my freedom of speech on the Internet. That is, I expect that nobody will come and try to arrest me for saying something online. That doesn't mean I expect someone to give me free reign on the servers that they pay for and work to maintain. That's different, and separate form freedom of speech. - JQP123, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5"The problem is that "The Internet" has both private and public elements."
A server owned by Yahoo is not one of the "public" elements.
There are private and public elements in the physical world also. Just because my private property connects to a public road, that doesn't give the public the right to park on it. - sandiegodude, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5Heh, this brings back memories of fools running around in World of Warcraft spamming idiotic junk then screaming "FREE SPEECH!" (often peppered with plenty of expletives) before a GM would pop up with "Ye' Olde Ban-Stick." Sorry bub, when you're on somebody's space, you follow their rules. Go stand in the lobby of a bank and start preaching about how banks are corporate-evil and see how long you last if you don't believe me =)
- Midtowner, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5Buried for the poster not knowing the difference between public and private forums.
- Seldon2639, on 07/07/2008, -2/+7The alarmist nature of the first few paragraphs speaks volumes about the lack of knowledge about why our constitutional rights are protected. The reason you can yell whatever you want on a sidewalk is because that's *public* property, owned and maintained by the government on behalf of the people. The moment you step on private property, you're subject to whatever restrictions the owner places on you. The owner needs no justification, except for the fact that you're on their premises.
Now, can someone tell me if there's any actual "public" property on the internet? The answer, as should be obvious, is that there isn’t. The funny thing is that the same evil, overbearing, government which is (if you listen to some diggers) the source of all problems in America is actually what allows us to say whatever we want in certain places.
You want freedom of speech on the internet? Lobby for the government to buy public webspace - aftern9ne, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6I didn't read the whole thing, but from what I understand these companies regulate what appears on their sites and servers to protect themselves from litigation. This speaks more about our country's affinity for suing than it does about the Internet's restriction of free speech.
- bradspangler, on 07/07/2008, -4/+9The poster's summary mentioning ranting in a public park is a bit disingenuous. If your remarks begin to become popular, law enforcement agents will show up demanding to see your permit for a public gathering, proof of meeting statutory requirements for permit issuance and so forth. The poster is naive if s/he sincerely believes such restrictions are not used for purposes of social control. You're "free" to be the lunatic who mutters to themself. You have freedom of speech, just as long as you say nothing of any consequence.
- nevetando, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4The internet isn't a public space... just like McDonalds isn't a public space... or your house isn't a public space. The owner of all said places can tell you whatever the hell they want, and do whatever the hell they want.
Dumb article. and misleading. - Hangly, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6Would have been 0.3% funnier if you had said "Soviet USA."
- Ricky81682, on 07/07/2008, -5/+9Let's flip the question. Does Yahoo/Facebook/Digg have a free speech right to police and control its content?
- thebaron2, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4The point, geddon, is that WHOEVER is running the site is paying for the domain space, and as such it's their right to run the place however they see fit (excluding illegal material as determined by the country in which the site is hosted).
If I, as a private citizen, open up a corner meeting house I have property-owner rights just like Best Buy does. If you waltz into my place slinging racial epithets or trying to peddle your wares I have every right to kick your ass to the curb. Same goes for websites.
Are you of the opinion that all spam filtering should be ruled unconstitutional, and that website owners shouldn't have control over who can advertise what and where to draw the line regarding lewd comments? - vexingmodstwo, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5Punctuation. Learn it.. love it.
- frankingeneral, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Even if Yahoo didn't put it back up there is no problem here, they'd be well within their rights.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 197 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is