Censorship is bad even when it’s done by private companies

Post by marcinzm » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:59 PM UTC

gonational wrote: post #43

Miner49er wrote: post #7

So 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.

In my opinion, the solution is simple: If any “platform” censors beyond removing illegal or copyrighted content or spam, they should have their “platform” status revoked, and they should be considered a publisher. This prevents such companies from using “platform” status as a cost saving mechanism to help them become large monopolies. Companies like Facebook would not have been able to take over so much of the market…

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:00 PM UTC

gdulli wrote: post #54

jvickers wrote: post #50

I have a wide view of what 'censorship' is, and I include spam filtering in the definition. For example, a while ago I saw an advert for some kind of erection-causing pill on a forum discussing C++. If the forum moderators remove such a post, they make the forum more efficient by saving other users (who are looking for C++ content) from themselves having to filter out irrelevant information / a sales pitch. I also se…

I agree. If you broaden the term "censorship" so much as to make it equivalent to any entity trying to enforce quality or relevance control standards in its own venue, you make the term useless. While also subverting conversation about actual censorship, cheapening it.

Post by giancarlostoro » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

jvickers wrote: post #50

I have a wide view of what 'censorship' is, and I include spam filtering in the definition. For example, a while ago I saw an advert for some kind of erection-causing pill on a forum discussing C++. If the forum moderators remove such a post, they make the forum more efficient by saving other users (who are looking for C++ content) from themselves having to filter out irrelevant information / a sales pitch. I also se…

Post by buboard » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:03 PM UTC

marcinzm wrote: post #81

gonational wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, the solution is simple: If any “platform” censors beyond removing illegal or copyrighted content or spam, they should have their “platform” status revoked, and they should be considered a publisher. This prevents such companies from using “platform” status as a cost saving mechanism to help them become large monopolies. Companies like Facebook would not have been able to take over so much of the market…

So no specialized platforms that cover a single topic or area? After all, then they'd need to delete off topic posts. What about user moderators deleting things? What about a mailing list owner enforcing guidelines? Or is all public online communication one giant unmanaged and unstructured sets of posts on everything and anything? Or, in reality, nothing but paid advertisements. edit: What about downvoting? Does that…

Post by disintegore » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:04 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #79

JediWing wrote: post #63

Know what else distorts the marketplace of ideas? Money. Money allows for buying advertisements, essentially allowing you to buy a platform to spread your ideas. Having money typically has a pretty clear bias: protecting the money of those who have it. This comes at the expense, many times, of those who do not. That typically equates to conservative policies. I'm not convinced that the market distortion caused by sup…

You know what else distorts the marketplace of ideas? Guns. Monetary incentives are a lot more voluntary in comparison