51–60 of 113 posts
You want a place that allows all speech, but is moderated? And you want to force search engines you index you? I'm not sure that this request is terribly coherent.
Freedom of speech != "all speech".
A platform with heavy moderation is required to actually enable the highest degree of freedom when it comes to speech, otherwise you allow people to impede others freedom for speech.
I'm having trouble even understanding the question, because I think your usage of "free speech" means something different than is normally intended. Free expression and free will always have an implied caveat, like "free will except where it impedes that of another". Free speech is always going to have a Venn diagram with "behavior", some of which is illegal. So if you're asking where you can go do illegal stuff, tha…
The problem is that what is legal should not be decided by social media platforms or their users but by the law & the courts. But most often this is not the case.. maybe the OP is addressing this issue.
If I start spewing political speech on HN, you will soon be banned and dang and company have every right to do so.
"Real subjects are not getting through." Getting though how? Just because you have free speech doesn't mean others must listen to you, or that you even need to use specific platforms.
Well, it goes both ways. Yes, the algorithm is simply rewarding content styles that apparently people "want to see more of". Of course, this metric is fuzzy. Twitter et al don't have perfect information here. All they know is certain content gets engaged with more. So it's both the people to blame and the algorithm. You can't really blame either side; capitalism values attention at all costs, while people naturally e…
The platforms manipulating what speech gets shown is in a way their own form of speech. I think this can be dangerous, but that's more a condemnation of how we use those private services than the services themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that what is legal should not be decided by social media platforms or their users but by the law & the courts. But most often this is not the case.. maybe the OP is addressing this issue.
Social media companies are private companies. You can set up your own servers and no government will interfere with you as long as you aren’t doing something illegal If I start spewing political speech on HN, you will soon be banned and dang and company have every right to do so.
Might have been true in the past but no longer. Once your platform gets a large enough audience, governments will try to artificially sway public opinion on the platform. This has been true for every single large social platform so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social media companies are private companies. You can set up your own servers and no government will interfere with you as long as you aren’t doing something illegal If I start spewing political speech on HN, you will soon be banned and dang and company have every right to do so.
> You can set up your own servers and no government will interfere with you as long as you aren’t doing something illegal Might have been true in the past but no longer. Once your platform gets a large enough audience, governments will try to artificially sway public opinion on the platform. This has been true for every single large social platform so far.
unless they are some local jack booted thugs…
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/13/mari...
I'd bet on small tightly knit groups for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The platforms don't decide what is legal, but they do have the right, and in many cases the obligation, to moderate their platforms. They can be held liable for allowing CSAM for example. And these platforms have business goals that can be in conflict with, say, allowing anti-LGBTQ or Nazi content.
Sounds like the problem (for a platform like this) is that they have "business goals" in the first place. Freedom of speech shouldn't be up for sale, especially when it comes to discussing sensitive topics and creating a for-profit business around that would do just that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social media companies are private companies. You can set up your own servers and no government will interfere with you as long as you aren’t doing something illegal If I start spewing political speech on HN, you will soon be banned and dang and company have every right to do so.
> You can set up your own servers and no government will interfere with you as long as you aren’t doing something illegal Might have been true in the past but no longer. Once your platform gets a large enough audience, governments will try to artificially sway public opinion on the platform. This has been true for every single large social platform so far.