4 ms·
Google is a private company though, their platforms aren’t basic utilities owned by the collective. As such google is free to use their platforms as they see fi
by eksemplar 9y ago
Google is a private company though, their platforms aren’t basic utilities owned by the collective. As such google is free to use their platforms as they see fit.
Nobody had an inherent right to be heard on somebody else’s platform.
- zaarn 9y agoGoogle's reach as a platform is sufficiently large that it has to be held to certain standards that smaller platforms wouldn't. Same goes for Facebook.
- jwalton 9y agoYou're correct, but you've missed the point. Google is the only search provider (or at least, the only one anyone uses), and so they have the power to decide what you are allowed and not allowed to discover. You're right that Google should not be forced to allow content they don't want to promote into their search results - and I don't think the article or anyone in this comment thread has argued that they should. But that's not the problem. The problem is that Google has this monopoly in the first place. Big monopolies and oligarchies are anathema to both democracy and to a free market.
- Brendinooo 9y agoI'm interested in discussing this point a bit more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama could possibly set a precedent against your argument, right? If someone could sufficiently prove that Google's platform is big enough to cause meaningful harm to those who are censored off of it, Google could be treated differently than an average website.
- eksemplar 9y agoWell, I’d argue that google needs to be reigned in, but I’m European and we like regulations. That being said, I doubt you’ll find anyone willing to enact laws that force companies to allow Neo Nazis to spread their message.