4 ms·

I dont think google should be regulated, they are free to censor. on the other hand i wouldnt cry if the GOP broke them all social sites up as it really is just

I dont think google should be regulated, they are free to censor. on the other hand i wouldnt cry if the GOP broke them all social sites up as it really is just an oligarchy. If only google blocked alex jones and he stayed on FB then i wouldnt see an issue because competition. However, i think its fair to say they are following the exact same policies so theres no competition.

prolikewh0a 8y ago
>I dont think google should be regulated, they are free to censor. Why do we willingly allow private governments, especially those with an enormous amount of power over people? Who would ever want these companies with hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other than complying with local laws? In my opinion, Google, Facebook, and other large corporations are a threat to our democracy & elections in a much larger way than any Russia claim that could be made. Censorship on the level that Google could and probably does pull off is a major concern and could swing elections that directly effect Americans negatively at the benefit of Google.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > Why do we willingly allow private governments, especially those with an enormous amount of power over people? Who would ever want these companies with hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other than complying with local laws? It's because people confuse the law with the principles it was meant to implement, so they stop their analysis after they've determined legality/illegality. Hypothetically, you could engineer away freedom of speech and freedom of assembly without changing the Constitution at all, if one corporation owned all the land and all the communication facilities in the US. It could enact a draconian, ideological censorship regime just by exercising its property rights, and that would be Constitutionally kosher because it's not an organization classified as "government." Antitrust law, etc. is not part of the Constitution and could Constitutionally be repealed or gutted. The Constitution was written to prevent many particular forms of tyranny and violations of rights, but it doesn't protect from all of them. That's why you can't stop with it; oftentimes you have to look deeper.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Or it's because we recognize that others also have freedom of speech, and freedom of association. If YouTube doesn't want Alex Jones spreading his unfounded conspiracies and saying that Sandy Hook victims are crisis actors, then why should they be obligated to associate with that?
- bduerst 8y ago
  >Who would ever want these companies with hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other than complying with local laws? Because local laws are about creating level playing fields, not quality control. A billion-user for-profit organization is going to optimize value for their billion users, not for their re-election campaign. This is why we have the first amendment.
- seventhtiger 8y ago
  Because they won't make a law that only affects these big corps. We can't have laws that legally require you to host any viewpoint. Should famous theaters be legally required to host all political views? Must a church host all religions? Freedom of speech is freedom from government oppression, but you could still get kicked out of someone's house.

prolikewh0a 8y ago

>I dont think google should be regulated, they are free to censor. Why do we willingly allow private governments, especially those with an enormous amount of power over people? Who would ever want these companies with hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other than complying with local laws? In my opinion, Google, Facebook, and other large corporations are a threat to our democracy & elections in a much larger way than any Russia claim that could be made. Censorship on the level that Google could and probably does pull off is a major concern and could swing elections that directly effect Americans negatively at the benefit of Google.

ardy42 8y ago
> Why do we willingly allow private governments, especially those with an enormous amount of power over people? Who would ever want these companies with hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other than complying with local laws? It's because people confuse the law with the principles it was meant to implement, so they stop their analysis after they've determined legality/illegality. Hypothetically, you could engineer away freedom of speech and freedom of assembly without changing the Constitution at all, if one corporation owned all the land and all the communication facilities in the US. It could enact a draconian, ideological censorship regime just by exercising its property rights, and that would be Constitutionally kosher because it's not an organization classified as "government." Antitrust law, etc. is not part of the Constitution and could Constitutionally be repealed or gutted. The Constitution was written to prevent many particular forms of tyranny and violations of rights, but it doesn't protect from all of them. That's why you can't stop with it; oftentimes you have to look deeper.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Or it's because we recognize that others also have freedom of speech, and freedom of association. If YouTube doesn't want Alex Jones spreading his unfounded conspiracies and saying that Sandy Hook victims are crisis actors, then why should they be obligated to associate with that?
bduerst 8y ago
>Who would ever want these companies with hundreds of millions to a billion+ users to be allowed to censor other than complying with local laws? Because local laws are about creating level playing fields, not quality control. A billion-user for-profit organization is going to optimize value for their billion users, not for their re-election campaign. This is why we have the first amendment.
seventhtiger 8y ago
Because they won't make a law that only affects these big corps. We can't have laws that legally require you to host any viewpoint. Should famous theaters be legally required to host all political views? Must a church host all religions? Freedom of speech is freedom from government oppression, but you could still get kicked out of someone's house.