3 ms·
What I see in your comment: people are too stupid to understand what's right for them, so we "as a society" should make commercial entities to censor their plat
by kingofhdds 8y ago
What I see in your comment: people are too stupid to understand what's right for them, so we "as a society" should make commercial entities to censor their platforms to pre-filter information available to general public.
Few questions arise: If you believe that people can't be trusted to decide if not guarded against unwanted information, do you really believe in democracy? Who are "we as a society"? Apparently, you are not talking about all people, or even majority.
- threeseed 8y agoYes societies has been doing this for generations. News organisations self-censor to ensure what they are posting is mostly factual, adheres to journalistic traditions and avoids slanderous and libellous content. We have laws that make it illegal to post certain content. You can disagree with it but it is the status quo in most countries and I see no reason why social media should be any different.
- kingofhdds 8y agoI don't think we are talking about libellous content: as you noted yourself it is already covered by existing laws, and there's no need to invent additional regulations for that. As for thing you call "self-censorship" there are two very different parts: pursuing correctness is not, actually, self-censorship, it's building reputation, and a long-term trust with an audience - and done essentially for commercial success. But there's self-censorship in media, of course, it exists because if political pressure, sponsors' influence, and last, but not least because most of journalists are not magical creatures, they are humans too, and naturally biased as all of us are. And I never heard anyone claiming this self-censorship to be good for society, and worth expanding.