4 ms·
This is also the first idea I've seen that tries to deal with the free speech problem on the internet. A lot of platforms today apply varying amounts of censors
by sarbaz 8y ago
This is also the first idea I've seen that tries to deal with the free speech problem on the internet. A lot of platforms today apply varying amounts of censorship (like youtube's copyright takedown mess), but there isn't really anything we can do because it's a privately owned platform and they can do whatever they want. But when they control such a large amount of mindshare, we end up putting the idea of free speech at risk.
Perhaps the platform utility designation will let us enforce a kind of "content neutrality" instead.
- komali2 8y agoIs this a good idea? Giving "fair time" to not only YouTube malcontents, but also actively bad actors i.e. state funded shills? I don't see how this could be implemented to the best interest of the USA without "censorship" being involved at some point.
- AlgorithmicTime 8y agoHow is it any different than letting them use the mail? You can't combine the First Amendment with censorship.
- int_19h 8y agoAs usual, the problem is who gets to decide "the best interests of the USA" in practice.
- Kaveren 8y agoJust because something has a lot of mindshare doesn't mean you have any business silencing their choices. People who don't agree with the policies of private companies like Facebook can simply not use it. Try Gab if you want a private company that is anti-censorship.
- charmides 8y agoIt seems like you are just repeating the same specious point that OP was refuting. Right now, it feels like companies like Google are mostly silencing hate speech, violent extremists, and pornography, but there is no guarantee that their censorship will remain that way in the future. In a not-so-hypothetical future where a single private company has taken almost whole control over online media and starts imposing heavy censorship over non-offensive speech, are we going to continue saying "it's a private company, and if you don't like it, you can just share your opinions on this platform that nobody reads"?
- Kaveren 8y agoYes, that's exactly what I'm going to do. Your opinion has no right to exist on any platform. Don't like it? You can move off of it. Bring other people to a platform that goes by rules you like. I don't use Gab, I am not interested in it, but it exists and has rules you may prefer if this hypothetical situation were to occur. I like diverse viewpoints being allowed. It is unacceptable, however, to be so entitled as to try to force companies not to censor whatever they feel like.
- sadris 8y agoIs it equally unacceptable to be entitled to try to force companies to hire/fire who they don't want? What about forcing companies to offer housing to people they do or don't like? And what about offering loans? Should companies be forced to offer loans to people, even if they don't want to?
- Kaveren 8y agoWe're talking about protected classes here, and I don't think it's equally unacceptable. On a fundamental level, inherent characteristics (race) are very different from ideas (speech). So I think you can be in favor of anti-discrimination on basis of who you are, while also being against beliefs becoming a protected class. Though, just so you know where I'm coming from, in my ideal world it would be strong social and business pressures that enforced the idea of protected classes, not regulation. I'd support any competitor which was more ethical, but complex issue.
- sadris 8y agoThe heritability of certain political preferences are higher than the heritability of homosexuality (a protected class).
- 908087 8y agoWould you be similarly comfortable with your cell provider censoring your calls and/or texts? After all, it's unacceptable to force them not to censor whatever they feel like.
- sbarre 8y agoThe flaw in this logic is that in today's online world if you want to participate in the relevant discourse, where everyone else is participating, it's Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc... This is like saying if you don't like the debate happening in your city hall or town square, go to the small gathering in the woods to have your conversations.. where no one will hear you, and what you say will have no impact. I know this the analogy is flawed because there is no "public space" on the Internet.. The places we have chosen to hold our public discourse online are all privately owned.. It's a challenging problem and "go somewhere else" is not a viable solution because it marginalizes and suppresses unpopular opinions or minority groups..