3 ms·
>I'm not sure what the right move is, but I don't think its as simple as "my private site is my private site, thats the end of it" Well get back to me when you
by thieving_magpie 8y ago
>I'm not sure what the right move is, but I don't think its as simple as "my private site is my private site, thats the end of it"
Well get back to me when you've worked out exactly when a private entity shouldn't be able to decide what content they allow. This ambiguity is really too difficult to figure out.
- vokep 8y agoI don't know, or I'd know what the right move is! For this, its sort of a "you know it when you see it" thing, as facebook/youtube/twitter are major platforms used by everyone, and so they feel a lot more like an online town square than a private space. So they are definitely past the line, and ought to have different rules on what content is allowed/disallowed than smaller lower population platforms.
- thieving_magpie 8y agoI can agree with you. It's something I've been thinking about lately and I keep coming back to how you'd define this in legal terms. It's tough.
- amanaplanacanal 8y agoThe problem is, if they are forced to allow "any legal content", they'll be overrun with spammers and other no-goods, and the users who just want to keep up with their family will all leave.