Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>unsurprisingly their priority becomes keeping those who might regulate them happy. Unsurprising, and not necessarily unwanted. IDK if you mean people or politicians by "they," but (in a democracy) they're the ones who make rules. Whether it's mandating access, limiting access, moderating, censoring, allowing freedom of speech or just mandating that stated policies are followed consistently... I think social media i…
Companies who run social media sites are not in a position to be journalists, or even editors. They are mostly moderators, trying to navigate around regulatory rocks and PR disaster storms. I suppose they would happily not curb any speech, just because it increases engagement (and with it, ad revenues). Actual journalists, that is, people reporting things, are those who have to demonstrate the ethos. But in social me…
...except when they aren't? how many psyops and trollfarm/clickfarm stories are necessary for it to be an imbalance of power?