3 ms·
I think you've lost the thread with you NYT and Brietbart examples. These companies are publishers, and since when is publishing censorship? This makes as littl
by jonathankoren 10y ago
I think you've lost the thread with you NYT and Brietbart examples. These companies are publishers, and since when is publishing censorship? This makes as little sense as saying Comedy Central censors dramas because they choose not to show dramas.
- tn13 10y ago> Comedy Central censors dramas because they choose not to show dramas. Yes that is my point. It is indeed and absurd way to look at it yet the underlying principle is the same i.e. a business selecting only specific type of things to show because it makes profits for them. Facebook can use the exact same principle to deny their platform to some group of news just because it reduces their profits.
- jonathankoren 10y agoFacebook is a different beast than The NYT and Breitbart, and to a lesser extent Comedy Central. The later are creators of original content. Facebook is not. I take a very dim view of saying that a creator of original content is censor by simply choosing not to create something. Censorship inherently is a veto over someone else's work. Facebook, because it is the middle man between the creator and the audience, is in a position to censor.