<story><title>Larry Flynt has died</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56019589</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ThrowawayR2</author><text>&amp;gt; &amp;quot;&lt;i&gt;I don’t understand what’s wrong with owning your platform to exercise your speech rights.&lt;/i&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;MLK and the civil rights movement didn&amp;#x27;t own their own platform.&lt;p&gt;The LGBT rights movement didn&amp;#x27;t own their own platform.&lt;p&gt;The women&amp;#x27;s rights movement didn&amp;#x27;t own their own platform.&lt;p&gt;Would you have been okay with them being swept under the rug?  It&amp;#x27;s not as if people in power didn&amp;#x27;t want to.</text></item><item><author>eyelidlessness</author><text>I don’t understand what’s wrong with owning your platform to exercise your speech rights. You still have a public square. It’s as free as it’s been since Flynt was a prominent figure. (I’m happy to talk about how unfree it can be from experience, but it hasn’t gotten worse especially for the people most up in arms about platform access.)&lt;p&gt;Instead of being constantly on the defense here... Why do you think you have a right to someone else’s resources for your speech? What entitles you to be published by anyone else at all?</text></item><item><author>eplanit</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m afraid people now see it as an antiquated and outmoded perspective on free speech.  His attitude was embraced by progressive people of the late 20th century.&lt;p&gt;That said, he too had to own his own platform in order to exercise his rights.</text></item><item><author>annoyingnoob</author><text>Larry has an interesting take, especially given the current environment.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;You know, a free press is not freedom for the thought you love, but rather for the thought you hate the most. People need to tolerate the Larry Flynts of the world so they can be free.&amp;quot; -Larry Flynt</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>AdamJacobMuller</author><text>The bigger problem is &amp;quot;define platform&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Don&amp;#x27;t like twitter censorship, make your own twitter.&lt;p&gt;Ergo, Parler.&lt;p&gt;Oh, but, that&amp;#x27;s not &amp;quot;your&amp;quot; platform, that&amp;#x27;s built on AWS&amp;#x27;s platform. So AWS can deplatform you.&lt;p&gt;What&amp;#x27;s next, if Parler sets up in a datacenter with their own physical servers are people going to attack their colocation&amp;#x2F;transit&amp;#x2F;peers or their DNS provider or their domain registrar or their SSL certificate issuer? Is LetsEncrypt a platform?&lt;p&gt;The biggest issue IMO is that with this you&amp;#x27;re centralizing all the idiotic and dangerous opinions and putting them in a huge echo chamber where they only ever see (mostly stupid) opinions of people they agree with. It&amp;#x27;s accomplishing the some of the goal the de-platformers want (they don&amp;#x27;t want to see the dumb content) but the content is still there, just more fringe and more radical and now they can rightfully complain about suppression of their opinions.</text></comment>
<story><title>Larry Flynt has died</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56019589</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ThrowawayR2</author><text>&amp;gt; &amp;quot;&lt;i&gt;I don’t understand what’s wrong with owning your platform to exercise your speech rights.&lt;/i&gt;&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;MLK and the civil rights movement didn&amp;#x27;t own their own platform.&lt;p&gt;The LGBT rights movement didn&amp;#x27;t own their own platform.&lt;p&gt;The women&amp;#x27;s rights movement didn&amp;#x27;t own their own platform.&lt;p&gt;Would you have been okay with them being swept under the rug?  It&amp;#x27;s not as if people in power didn&amp;#x27;t want to.</text></item><item><author>eyelidlessness</author><text>I don’t understand what’s wrong with owning your platform to exercise your speech rights. You still have a public square. It’s as free as it’s been since Flynt was a prominent figure. (I’m happy to talk about how unfree it can be from experience, but it hasn’t gotten worse especially for the people most up in arms about platform access.)&lt;p&gt;Instead of being constantly on the defense here... Why do you think you have a right to someone else’s resources for your speech? What entitles you to be published by anyone else at all?</text></item><item><author>eplanit</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m afraid people now see it as an antiquated and outmoded perspective on free speech.  His attitude was embraced by progressive people of the late 20th century.&lt;p&gt;That said, he too had to own his own platform in order to exercise his rights.</text></item><item><author>annoyingnoob</author><text>Larry has an interesting take, especially given the current environment.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;You know, a free press is not freedom for the thought you love, but rather for the thought you hate the most. People need to tolerate the Larry Flynts of the world so they can be free.&amp;quot; -Larry Flynt</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mannykannot</author><text>I am not sure you are making the point you intended to. These movements were opposed by powerful elements, they did not own the largest platforms, and yet they prevailed. Any movement that depends on the most powerful elements of society to secure it a platform is at grave risk of becoming dependent on them.</text></comment>