4 ms·
> That is not comparable to platforms > censoring certain views. Historically, it has been. If someone had sent a letter to The Pennsylvania Chronicle, co
by charlesism 8y ago
> That is not comparable to platforms
> censoring certain views.
Historically, it has been. If someone had sent a letter to The Pennsylvania Chronicle, containing a recipe for baking a turd pie, I don't think Ben Franklin would have felt the need to print it.
Facebook, Twitter, Google... they're the ones footing the bill to host their users' content.
- manfredo 8y agoThe Pennsylvania Chronicle isn't a platform. It's a publisher. Readers' letters getting published is the exception, not the norm. The ideas discussed here would be more like a telecoms provider specifically refusing to do business with someone because they disagree with their politics.
- mundo 8y agoWhat's the difference? AFAICT the idea that when a website gets big enough it becomes de facto infrastructure and gets governed by different rules is pure imagination.
- basch 8y agoThere are rules that treat telecoms differently precisely because there is opportunity for market failure. The argument is, that some software companies have crossed into becoming a telecom like entity. A market failure exists, where consumers may need protecting. Obviously, current laws dont treat facebook, google, or microsoft that way. Do we feel the same way about gmail/outlook starting to censor emails that google/microsoft dont approve of?