3 ms·
>The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube, twitter etc, is so high, that if you want to disseminate a message, those _must_ be the platforms you use. Thi
by SantalBlush 8y ago
>The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube, twitter etc, is so high, that if you want to disseminate a message, those _must_ be the platforms you use.
This isn't true though. Alex Jones can disseminate his message through countless other websites, which have their own users. This is really just advocating for equal exposure of opinions, which isn't a free speech issue.
- wolco 8y agoNot free speech but open platforms.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- BubRoss 8y agoThere are plenty of places on the internet more lenient than the biggest websites. Check out voat and see what happens when people banned from other platforms go to the same place. It isn't pretty but at least they aren't a blight on other groups.
- miemo 8y agoit's not equal exposure at all, it's equal opportunity for exposure. i can post a comment on FB and get 0 likes, that doesn't give me equal exposure to the latest nike video on their page. denying opportunity for exposure is giving that platform the ultimate authority on what shouldn't be able to be exposed in society, if society is reliant on that platform. i don't want alex jones to have exposure, but i don't want an exec deciding what's next on the chopping block. a page suggesting publicly available employee salaries? they shouldn't have that power
- SantalBlush 8y agoSociety in the United States is in no way reliant on that platform. If it were, then we would be in agreement. If we're talking about internet providers, that's a different issue, since they are a user's conduit to the entire web. Those absolutely should not be able to choose which accounts to favor.