Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies
necpluribusimpar.net
Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies
1–10 of 261 posts
Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies
#2I'm always surprised when articles like this don't mention reddit. Isn't it a top 10 website that was once top 3? I've read quotes saying one in three americans has visited reddit. Anyway, reddit is a great resource for studying moderation activity.
Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies
#3This is such an own-goal. Before worrying about censoring unwanted content, companies should spend their time on stopping promoting it (and building client side filtering controls) which is just as huge a problem and not anti-American to fix.
The problem is that companies want the flamebait and toxic content to drive enragement engagement ad impressions, but don't want to be accountable for the stuff that's just too edgy for advertisers.
Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies
#4See but that's a libertarian issue here.
If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want.
You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.
Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies
#5See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.
> If you value freedom above all else
Thats not libertarian, its freedom to do whatever you want that doesn't affect other people.
Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies
#6Not that impressed with this article. It states as it might be a fact that the "right is suppressed" and "left" is "in favor". Then it never really explains why censorship might be bad or not. It doesn't get really concrete, just something vague about "marketplace of ideas".
IMO it's bad to have places where only one side is heard, the other is not. Further, there are too many places where people might feel they're a majority in their opinion, while they're not. Usually people would notice they're the odd one out. That's not the case in various places (e.g. subreddits).
Note that I'm from the Netherlands and do not agree with freedom of speech above everything is a good thing. There should be some limits to it. These reasonable limits should be in place.
Making distinctions between right/left and complaining that more of your stuff is questionable.. yeah.. so? The "left"/Democratic party I consider pretty conservative and not looking out for its people. As such, it's always strange to see the complaints, what is right/left for e.g. US to me is "right wing" vs "even more right wing".
I also do not see the restrictions; there should be way more limits on reddit/twitter/facebook. Further, I think the companies should be held responsible for this.
Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies
#7So the author wants to protect "the marketplace of ideas" from monopolies caused by a different market. However, they don't want the government to do it. They also don't seem to think it's possible for smaller companies to challenge these monopolies.
What then is the author's solution? One is never given.
Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies
#8See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.
I don’t think that’s the argument they’re making. I think they would concede that Google has a property right, and may at it’s discretion moderate content. However, they would argue that Google shouldn’t exercise that right because it is harmful to the culture of free speech. This is volunteerism, which is to say they should choose to hold themselves to a standard without being forced to do so.
I’m not sure how I feel about it, but I think I’ve summarized the best version of the argument.
Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies
#9See but that's a libertarian issue here. If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want. You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.
Ironically this is somewhat similar the LGBT cake shop case where the two political sides are flipped.
A great example of how many people don’t care about right and wrong, just winning.
Re: Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies
#10So the author wants to protect "the marketplace of ideas" from monopolies caused by a different market. However, they don't want the government to do it. They also don't seem to think it's possible for smaller companies to challenge these monopolies. What then is the author's solution? One is never given.
Government should regulate Facebook, Google (Youtube), Twitter, etc. as utilities that they are. The current situation where the corporations aren't responsible for the content but can censor it is the best example of why they should be treated as utilities.