3 ms·
When newspapers and nightly news were the main purveyors of news content should they have been forced to allow anyone with an opinion to air it publicly? I don'
by logosmonkey 7y ago
When newspapers and nightly news were the main purveyors of news content should they have been forced to allow anyone with an opinion to air it publicly? I don't think so and I'm not sure I see much difference here. Those who weren't part of the establishment that wanted their voices heard made their own papers and shows, those banned from facebook/twitter/youtube can do the same.
- brigandish 7y agoNo, they should not have forced to allow all comers to air an opinion (not that that would necessarily have been a bad thing), but the situation you've given is one of a time with healthy competition between a plurality of media outlets. If any one of them a) was a monopoly in its sector, and b) was also providing a platform initially to anyone that wanted one, then I would agree with the comparison. Considering the Patreon fuss and now Mastercard's "human rights committee", it's not only "build your own website", it's rapidly moving towards "build your own bank". It's not realistic.