3 ms·
As a very aggressive free speech advocate, forcing companies or individuals to serve certain kinds of content is just as bad as preventing them from doing so. F
by wyager 10y ago
As a very aggressive free speech advocate, forcing companies or individuals to serve certain kinds of content is just as bad as preventing them from doing so. Free speech is both a positive and negative right; I should be able to say whatever I damned well please, and I shouldn't be obligated to say anything I don't. If Facebook wants to keep pursuing their absurd politically-charged censorship policies, they are free to do so.
Forcing Facebook to allow whatever pre-approved speech is "protected" (and who gets to decide that list?), besides being a violation of their rights, is probably worse for the users than doing nothing at all, because it gives users the illusion that Facebook is a platform for free speech. Users should be fully cognizant of the fact that they are not free to speak their mind on Facebook, as this provides encouragement for people to seek freer platforms.
- bambax 10y ago> who gets to decide that list The courts, obviously. As the law stands today, you can't sue FB for closing your account for a perceived violation of their ToS (you can maybe sue, but you'll lose); with different laws you could sue, and the matter would be decided by judges. The fundamental problem is that companies like FB consider user-generated content as a free resource, much like a river onto which they build dams to make money from its flow. But speech is fundamentally free (and, arguably, public property); the medium it uses to express itself shouldn't get to regulate it.
- wyager 10y agoIn other words, the courts should be able to force websites to host content?