3 ms·

Do you believe then, that Facebook (founded 2004) and Google(founded 1998) have an obligation to carrier any and all speech? Why? Because they were successful?

• humanrebar 9y ago
  > ...an obligation to carrier any and all speech? "Any" and "all" are absolute words like "always" and "never", so no. I think there's room to create something like network neutrality but for speech. It doesn't need to apply to every single site on the internet, just like network neutrality doesn't apply to every single server connected to the internet. But there is an analogy between the companies that provide the backbone of the internet and the companies that provide the backbone of public discourse. > "If I were Facebook..." Morally and ethically, facebook should not be able to influence public discussion to fit their worldview, including banning thoughts it finds too abhorrent. The (recent, to the internet) push to do so is just a new wave of the things described in the Scarlet Letter, Fahrenheit 451, and 1984. It's getting pushed too far and things will happen people will regret. Should there be legal protections? At the moment, I think the discussion is worth having. If you asked me ten years ago, I would have said no, but it's apparent to me that something is different this time. I don't know if it's network effects or what, but it seems like a few companies are carriers for the public speech of average Americans and if they all decided that the thoughts of, say, libertarians were dangerous, we could end up with another round of the Hollywood blacklists, but that affect everyone and in much less tangible ways (algorithms that change and cannot testify, lack of objective data to prove suppression happens, etc.).