111–120 of 598 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also services like Cloudflare, and email providers like GMail.
Also television channels and libraries. They are as much of a common carrier as a website is. Which is to say, they are not at all.
Entirely reasonable either they are publishers and thus have free speech and carry full penalties for all the content they allow. Or they are carriers and thus should have no say, but also no risks of content.
This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. If you don't like what you read, or if you read things that are not true that is on you as an individual to make appropriate choices. The government shouldnt meddle with social networks. They are just that, social and voluntary.
A corporation is a creation of government. Why shouldn't they be able to regulate them any way they think best? Which isn't necessarily to say this is a good idea, but... of course government should be able to tell companies how to operate.
If you’re okay with the government controlling any legal organization do yoh feel the same way about government controlling churches? Advocacy groups?
This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. If you don't like what you read, or if you read things that are not true that is on you as an individual to make appropriate choices. The government shouldnt meddle with social networks. They are just that, social and voluntary.
Private companies are regulated all the time. Look up the rules for any utility or communications company. They banned politicians, so that's going to get laws passed.
When a state is against net neutrality, pro super PACs, pro hobby lobby/religious tests in employment, pro book banning in libraries, but wants to regulate social networks because "political freedom", their motivations are a bit suspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are given massive subsidies from the government to do so. Social networks have nothing to do with infrastructure where as utilities and communications do.
> Social networks have nothing to do with infrastructure where as utilities and communications do Social network and communications have nothing to do with each-other? are you reading what you are writing? How is Facebook messenger call different from a phonecall of the 21st century?
I have at least 7 apps on my phone now that I can use to call someone over an app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Content moderation is a balancing act. Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. Do you believe that zero content moderation is good?
I take content moderation on a case by case basis. That's like asking me to decide between whether all movies are good or all movies should be banned. > Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. We should help them by giving them far less latitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
both sides think "social media" is biased against them; I honestly could not guess which way you think the bias goes
They're biased against something, because they delete legal content.
If you’re hosting a garden party and one of the guests has become disruptive to everyone else, are you not allowed to demand they cease their behavior or leave your property just because their angry ranting is not illegal speech?
You’re totally within your right to say “I’m out, this party sucks anyway, you guys don’t want to have honest debate” but it’s a little absurd to force the property owner to allow you to stick around when you are no longer welcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems to be centered on politics/candidates, which IMO is the wrong motivation. Because political censorship is the worst censorship (you might argue that all censorship is political.) It's like how political prisoners are the easiest sign a place is a dictatorship. If the powerful are censoring the political process, there are no means to make any of the powerful less powerful. It becomes self-perpetuating.
There is absolutely nothing stopping conservatives from establishing their own social media platform. Conservatives love “the free market” as long as it is working for them. Whose fault is it that Truth Social is an abysmal failure?
1. Network effects mean that there's only space for one platform in a particular niche.
2. There are reports (are they reliable?) that people who are more left wing are more habitually online and post much more.
If the above two are true, then left-wing social networks will naturally dominate.