4 ms·

It is free expression for the privately run platforms to ban him.

falcolas 8y ago
And there's one of the caveats I mentioned. Of course, it raises the concern - it's not the platform exercising free speech, it's a couple of individuals acting on behalf of the legal entity that owns the platform. Treating the platform, or the legal entity, as a being capable of expressing themselves - let's be honest with ourselves - is just a shield for the company owners to express themselves without being held accountable.
- gammateam 8y ago
  its those couple of individuals prerogative. it was never a discussion about the platform it was a discussion about the legal entity. what is there a need to be honest about, what segment of the society is confused about that, I'm personally not familiar with those people and it doesn't anything about what I understand is congruent with the constitutional social contract of the privately run platform to exercise their free expression to boot off someone is also exercising their free expression.
singularity2001 8y ago
Please don't make it look like Apple is a random company. They are a giant with monopolies. If Apple/FB/ABC start censoring the world will not become a better place.
- 235rt2vf 8y ago
  Isn't the problem, then, that these companies are Monopolies? Why are we talking about whether private companies should ban content or not, when the real problem is that Facebook and Apple have built monopolies around lock-in and network effects, and that consumers don't have a meaningful choice to go elsewhere.
  - singularity2001 8y ago
    Yes, that's one gigantic problem. Before that's fixed we must not tolerate censorship, otherwise fixing it will be much harder. (Imaging the big corps to censor all criticism of monopolies!)
    - 235rt2vf 8y ago
      Touche.
bassman9000 8y ago
Absolutely. And with rights come responsibility. If Jones' platform ends up boosted, it will be fair to say Facebook contributed to it.

And there's one of the caveats I mentioned. Of course, it raises the concern - it's not the platform exercising free speech, it's a couple of individuals acting on behalf of the legal entity that owns the platform. Treating the platform, or the legal entity, as a being capable of expressing themselves - let's be honest with ourselves - is just a shield for the company owners to express themselves without being held accountable.

gammateam 8y ago
its those couple of individuals prerogative. it was never a discussion about the platform it was a discussion about the legal entity. what is there a need to be honest about, what segment of the society is confused about that, I'm personally not familiar with those people and it doesn't anything about what I understand is congruent with the constitutional social contract of the privately run platform to exercise their free expression to boot off someone is also exercising their free expression.

singularity2001 8y ago

Please don't make it look like Apple is a random company. They are a giant with monopolies. If Apple/FB/ABC start censoring the world will not become a better place.

235rt2vf 8y ago
Isn't the problem, then, that these companies are Monopolies? Why are we talking about whether private companies should ban content or not, when the real problem is that Facebook and Apple have built monopolies around lock-in and network effects, and that consumers don't have a meaningful choice to go elsewhere.
- singularity2001 8y ago
  Yes, that's one gigantic problem. Before that's fixed we must not tolerate censorship, otherwise fixing it will be much harder. (Imaging the big corps to censor all criticism of monopolies!)
  - 235rt2vf 8y ago
    Touche.

bassman9000 8y ago

Absolutely. And with rights come responsibility. If Jones' platform ends up boosted, it will be fair to say Facebook contributed to it.