5 ms·
The mall got out of it because there were many alternate places to distribute messages, so banning mall speech didn't significantly stifle overall speech. That
by CobrastanJorji 8y ago
The mall got out of it because there were many alternate places to distribute messages, so banning mall speech didn't significantly stifle overall speech. That probably still also applies to Facebook today, but not by a wide margin.
- philwelch 8y agoOne could argue that this implies an antitrust issue, no?
- ceejayoz 8y agoIf places like Twitter didn't exist, sure.
- stcredzero 8y agoThe group of SV CEOs has a disturbing combination of 1) too much uniformity of viewpoint, 2) too much power over discourse, and 3) too much collusive inter-communication. This combination is highly disturbing. EDIT: Given their uniformity of viewpoint and their power, I would expect a moral, intellectually honest, and highly self-aware of such powerful people to act with forbearance and not attempt to use their power to coerce the public. They should be seeking the consent of the weaker. They should be concerned about the consent of the governed. Instead, they are revealing just what they think of the rest of us. Manipulation is not a substitute for consent!
- ceejayoz 8y agoIf someone's a douchebag and gets banned from all the malls in a city, that doesn't necessarily mean the malls colluded.
- stcredzero 8y agoSV CEOs go on interview shows and talk about getting advice from each other. We're not only going by results here, but by self testimony. They also demonstrate the same idiosyncratic biases -- which very often involve the mislabeling of beliefs they don't like. They behave in concert, often taking similar actions on the same target, all on the same day.
- ceejayoz 8y ago> SV CEOs go on interview shows and talk about getting advice from each other. This describes basically every big company CEO in existence, and hardly proves the idea of collusion. > They behave in concert, often taking similar actions on the same target, all on the same day. That's hardly surprising. Media attention has a habit of snowballing, even absent active collusion. It's pretty easy to mistake the two.
- stcredzero 8y agoThis describes basically every big company CEO in existence, and hardly proves the idea of collusion. I highly doubt that excuse would hold up under discovery.
- ceejayoz 8y agoI highly doubt Zuckerberg and Dorsey are emailing around conspiratorial "let's ban the frogs-are-gay guy" missives.
- stcredzero 8y agoI don't doubt something interesting would come up with PayPal, Patreon, and MasterCard.
- ceejayoz 8y agoOne prominent reporter calling a couple payment processors and asking the same question - "I'm doing a series on why you help <bad person> fund their operations" does the trick just as easily as a big (extremely risky) conspiracy.
- ramblerouser 8y agoThis is an excellent point ablut collusion. The Alex Jones debacles proves conclusively the media giants act in concert to censor political dissonants.
- ams6110 8y agoExcept the primary purpose of a mall is retail business, not message distribution. Facebook's primary purpose (as far as its users are concerned) is to facilitate social interaction. It's almost exactly analagous to the village commons or town square. Or maybe, to a "place of public accommodation." I was originally sympathetic to the "it's their platform, they can do what they want" argument but this has given me something to think about.
- jonny_eh 8y agoI thought Facebook was a living room now, not a town square.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]