3 ms·

That's the thing though, these are private companies at the end of the day and can censor whatever they like. That'll reflect on their brand and perception, bu

That's the thing though, these are private companies at the end of the day and can censor whatever they like. That'll reflect on their brand and perception, but that's their choice. It's changing because they're trying to follow 'public sentiment' and keep up the sign-ups, views and clicks to get advertisers their money. If we want them to not be able to censor/moderate/control their platform their own way, they need to be regulated/classed as a carrier/media org. It's only been 'open' till now because that's the most profitable model... People need to realise these companies are not public services compelled to free speech, it's just an expectation the users expect to be met.

humanrebar 9y ago
> ...that's their choice... Sure. They can also choose to lie, say sexist things, and promote irresponsible drinking. And I'll criticize them if they do that, too. I said: 1. It is by definition censorship. 2. People should strongly criticize things that are both legal and wrong. I do think content hosts need some legal status if we want an open internet (and digital free speech) to survive. But because I'm for healthy conversation, I'm pushing back on replying to valid point with arguments for ending the conversation.
salawat 9y ago
Have you ever noticed that no one ever brings up a company being private until they do something that outrages the public?