44 ms·
I never equated the two. The government is still under the obligation to treat all speech equivalently. However, for a private citizen or corporation to extend
by ashleyn 8y ago
I never equated the two. The government is still under the obligation to treat all speech equivalently. However, for a private citizen or corporation to extend a platform to these people is a very ethically problematic act, one that transcends this already-questionable notion that private citizens owe each other a chance to be heard.
- aldoushuxley001 8y agoI believe you did actually equate the two, just implicitly rather than explicitly. May not have even realized you were doing it. That being said, I do agree with you that private corporations are under no obligation to respect free speech laws that mainly only apply to the government. Facebook is free to do as it pleases regarding who to censor or who not to. In regards to extending a platform to people who's ideas you disagree with... I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. First, it's often wayyy to difficult to draw the line between acceptable and not. Secondly, I'd rather have racists and idiots explicitly write out their views so that we can have a conservation with them rather than causing them to go underground where their views understandably fester and become more extreme due to persecution and lack of other viewpoints.
- bena 8y agoWhy? If a private citizen sets up an "open mic" of sorts that anyone can use to espouse their viewpoints because they believe in "free speech", why is that "ethically problematic"? Facebook doesn't owe it to anyone, but then again, there's no good reason for them not to do it either.