3 ms·

When they operate as a platform they should be politically neutral and allow free speech for their users. Companies being overtly political isn't illegal but it

When they operate as a platform they should be politically neutral and allow free speech for their users. Companies being overtly political isn't illegal but it is consumer hostile and just a bad idea.

scarface74 7y ago
There is no one forcing you to be a consumer of Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon. They aren’t infrastructure companies. If your ideas have enough merit, you should be able to get your ideas out there. For instance, Farrakhan [1] (who was deplatformed) has been getting his message out for decades before there was an internet. [1] I have no idea about any of his beliefs or why he got deplatformed. I just know he’s been around forever.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > There is no one forcing you to be a consumer of Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon. They aren’t infrastructure companies. I think that's debatable (which is precisely what the antitrust investigation is looking into). Regardless, I'm not forced to stand up for them either. I don't agree with how they are operating and I'm glad they're being looked into.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    You really don’t think there is any other means to get your word out than to depend on Facebook and Twitter? HN users are always telling musicians that they should make their money from touring and selling CDs. Why couldn’t people get speaking engagements, sell books, create podcasts (no you don’t have to be in the Apple Podcast directory, you can subscribe to a podcast directly from the RSS feed), newsletters, etc. Yes, I do feel the bar has to be a lot higher - as in burning babies at an alter besides cute kittens -for an infrastructure company like an ISP or a domain register to ban you.
    - techntoke 7y ago
      Time to make sure that all those conservative businesses in Indiana can't kick me out of their stores for expressing my free speech and political opinions in their store, otherwise they should be regulated. /sarcasm
root_axis 7y ago
What if the creators of a platform decided that it's their prerogative not to host certain political ideas on their platform because they disagree with it? Should they be forced to support speech they disagree with?
- malvosenior 7y ago
  If they claim common carrier status, then yes they have to allow all legal speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Since when did Facebook claim “common carrier status”?
  - belltaco 7y ago
    Not this argument again. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...

scarface74 7y ago

There is no one forcing you to be a consumer of Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon. They aren’t infrastructure companies. If your ideas have enough merit, you should be able to get your ideas out there. For instance, Farrakhan [1] (who was deplatformed) has been getting his message out for decades before there was an internet. [1] I have no idea about any of his beliefs or why he got deplatformed. I just know he’s been around forever.

malvosenior 7y ago
> There is no one forcing you to be a consumer of Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon. They aren’t infrastructure companies. I think that's debatable (which is precisely what the antitrust investigation is looking into). Regardless, I'm not forced to stand up for them either. I don't agree with how they are operating and I'm glad they're being looked into.
- scarface74 7y ago
  You really don’t think there is any other means to get your word out than to depend on Facebook and Twitter? HN users are always telling musicians that they should make their money from touring and selling CDs. Why couldn’t people get speaking engagements, sell books, create podcasts (no you don’t have to be in the Apple Podcast directory, you can subscribe to a podcast directly from the RSS feed), newsletters, etc. Yes, I do feel the bar has to be a lot higher - as in burning babies at an alter besides cute kittens -for an infrastructure company like an ISP or a domain register to ban you.
  - techntoke 7y ago
    Time to make sure that all those conservative businesses in Indiana can't kick me out of their stores for expressing my free speech and political opinions in their store, otherwise they should be regulated. /sarcasm

root_axis 7y ago

What if the creators of a platform decided that it's their prerogative not to host certain political ideas on their platform because they disagree with it? Should they be forced to support speech they disagree with?

malvosenior 7y ago
If they claim common carrier status, then yes they have to allow all legal speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
- scarface74 7y ago
  Since when did Facebook claim “common carrier status”?
- belltaco 7y ago
  Not this argument again. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...