4 ms·

I guess sooner or later someone will link to these, so may as well be me :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P

I guess sooner or later someone will link to these, so may as well be me :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

adventured 8y ago
If you're a social media platform that possesses such a vast, overwhelming monopoly as what Facebook has, then you are capable of censorship. Your status as a monopoly means the normal market rules no longer apply to you. That you comply with the first amendment should properly be a pass-through legal requirement as a condition of your status as a monopolist. If they resist cooperating with that designation, despite their monopoly, then we must regulate them. Split off Instagram and WhatsApp from the core Facebook platform as an anti-trust action. At a minimum legally mandate that all monopolist platforms must equally enforce all of their terms of service for all users and must do so in a publicly verifiable manner. If they fail at that task, drown them in fines until they go bankrupt or stop selectively punishing some groups while allowing others to do the exact same things without punishment. Ideally, regulate Facebook and all such monopolist platforms that deal with speech as a form of public square. I dislike Roy Moore and his politics. That doesn't mean I think it's ok for all the car companies to conspire together as a group monopoly and deny Moore the ability to purchase a new vehicle to punish him. Or that it's ok for the couple of telecom monopolies to get together and deny him access to the phone networks. Denying voices access to the public square - Facebook's social monopoly - is equally reprehensible. The most important speech we protect, is the speech of the ugly minority, which is what both the far left and far right often represent. I don't like seeing Antifa clad in black body armor, marching around with Soviet flags urging the adoption of Communism and the overthrow of the US Government. I similarly don't like to see it on Facebook. I fundamentally disagree with them. We should protect their right to that speech and their right to have access to Facebook's monopoly platform.
- jachee 8y ago
  Sounds like an antitrust violation investigation may be in order.
- stretchwithme 8y ago
  Facebook doesn't have a monopoly over expression, so it still quite possible to express one's opinion in a myriad of ways. Like this here. Freedom of expression doesn't equal a right to distribution.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  Could you explain how Facebook has a monopoly on the public discourse? Jones was banned from YouTube, Twitter, Spotify, and itunes. That's 4 other platforms controlled by four other entities. For many people, Twitter and YouTube will both have larger reach than Facebook (yes fb has more users, but people don't go to Facebook to catch up on news from big influencers like they do on Twitter), so what makes Facebook the monopoly?

adventured 8y ago

If you're a social media platform that possesses such a vast, overwhelming monopoly as what Facebook has, then you are capable of censorship. Your status as a monopoly means the normal market rules no longer apply to you. That you comply with the first amendment should properly be a pass-through legal requirement as a condition of your status as a monopolist. If they resist cooperating with that designation, despite their monopoly, then we must regulate them. Split off Instagram and WhatsApp from the core Facebook platform as an anti-trust action. At a minimum legally mandate that all monopolist platforms must equally enforce all of their terms of service for all users and must do so in a publicly verifiable manner. If they fail at that task, drown them in fines until they go bankrupt or stop selectively punishing some groups while allowing others to do the exact same things without punishment. Ideally, regulate Facebook and all such monopolist platforms that deal with speech as a form of public square. I dislike Roy Moore and his politics. That doesn't mean I think it's ok for all the car companies to conspire together as a group monopoly and deny Moore the ability to purchase a new vehicle to punish him. Or that it's ok for the couple of telecom monopolies to get together and deny him access to the phone networks. Denying voices access to the public square - Facebook's social monopoly - is equally reprehensible. The most important speech we protect, is the speech of the ugly minority, which is what both the far left and far right often represent. I don't like seeing Antifa clad in black body armor, marching around with Soviet flags urging the adoption of Communism and the overthrow of the US Government. I similarly don't like to see it on Facebook. I fundamentally disagree with them. We should protect their right to that speech and their right to have access to Facebook's monopoly platform.

jachee 8y ago
Sounds like an antitrust violation investigation may be in order.
stretchwithme 8y ago
Facebook doesn't have a monopoly over expression, so it still quite possible to express one's opinion in a myriad of ways. Like this here. Freedom of expression doesn't equal a right to distribution.
joshuamorton 8y ago
Could you explain how Facebook has a monopoly on the public discourse? Jones was banned from YouTube, Twitter, Spotify, and itunes. That's 4 other platforms controlled by four other entities. For many people, Twitter and YouTube will both have larger reach than Facebook (yes fb has more users, but people don't go to Facebook to catch up on news from big influencers like they do on Twitter), so what makes Facebook the monopoly?