3 ms·

Google, Facebook, Twitter etc are profoundly different from any information medium that has existed in the past. As such, we must define new ways of thinking ab

Google, Facebook, Twitter etc are profoundly different from any information medium that has existed in the past. As such, we must define new ways of thinking about their behavior, of considering the legality of their censorship. What's especially insidious about censorship online that forces us to think differently about it is that when users do a Google search, they generally don't expect political bias to influence search results. People are aware of the biases of different media outlets and can tailor their consumption of such media accordingly, but the black box of social media and internet search means the bias is invisible and we can't monitor it the way we can when we read the New York Times or watch Fox News. Yes these are private companies, but they monopolize what has become the public square and we must not allow the public square to be arbitrarily controlled by private entities.

bduerst 8y ago
You could make the same argument about television broadcasts in the 70's, radio in the 30's, and newsprint in the 1900's. The medium of communication doesn't make speech suddenly exempt from the first amendment - especially when the government is actively questioning if the speech in context is legal because they don't like the search results they see.
- goblekitepe 8y ago
  Newsprint, Radio and Television are completely different for two reasons. First, they never had the monopoly control over information that Google has. But a more important distinction is this: Google has control over what content produced by individuals is seen by other individuals. Television, radio and newspapers are much more limited in scope, in that they are private groups which produce content that I consume. Google, Twitter and Facebook instead provide platforms for individuals to share their own content, which is what makes them part of the "public square", and which is why - combined with their monopoly control of the internet - their politically biased attempts at controlling what we see is censorship and cannot be tolerated.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    >First, they never had the monopoly control over information that Google has. Google does not have a monopoly. Market dominance with accessible competition != monopoly. Having a consumer preferred or superior product != monopoly. >Google has control over what content produced by individuals is seen by other individuals And the television networks didn't? What you're describing is not different at all.
    - goblekitepe 8y ago
      Yes it has dominance of the market, whether it uses monopolistic practices is irrelevant. No, television spreads the product of companies, not the thought of individuals.

bduerst 8y ago

You could make the same argument about television broadcasts in the 70's, radio in the 30's, and newsprint in the 1900's. The medium of communication doesn't make speech suddenly exempt from the first amendment - especially when the government is actively questioning if the speech in context is legal because they don't like the search results they see.

goblekitepe 8y ago
Newsprint, Radio and Television are completely different for two reasons. First, they never had the monopoly control over information that Google has. But a more important distinction is this: Google has control over what content produced by individuals is seen by other individuals. Television, radio and newspapers are much more limited in scope, in that they are private groups which produce content that I consume. Google, Twitter and Facebook instead provide platforms for individuals to share their own content, which is what makes them part of the "public square", and which is why - combined with their monopoly control of the internet - their politically biased attempts at controlling what we see is censorship and cannot be tolerated.
- bduerst 8y ago
  >First, they never had the monopoly control over information that Google has. Google does not have a monopoly. Market dominance with accessible competition != monopoly. Having a consumer preferred or superior product != monopoly. >Google has control over what content produced by individuals is seen by other individuals And the television networks didn't? What you're describing is not different at all.
  - goblekitepe 8y ago
    Yes it has dominance of the market, whether it uses monopolistic practices is irrelevant. No, television spreads the product of companies, not the thought of individuals.