3 ms·

> You say that as if it's a good thing. From just a practical perspective, if your goal is an increase in unfettered speech on these platforms, or the Internet

> You say that as if it's a good thing. From just a practical perspective, if your goal is an increase in unfettered speech on these platforms, or the Internet in general, where would you want them to be besides the United States? Since you're talking about what would and would not, (or should and should not) be allowed, I assume some form of government is enacting and enforcing this as law. I'm not aware of any nation that takes as close to absolutist of an approach to free speech other than the US. Even in the US we're currently in a relatively anomalous period of expansive free speech protection, historically speaking. Relevant to this conversation, "hate speech" itself is a particularly common subject of bans in other nations otherwise generally considered equal to or greater than the US where "freedom" is concerned.

coldtea 7y ago
That's a good point. I think such platforms should be publicly run, perhaps something like a UN-project, and follow absolutist rules of free speech. To me, something as crucial as a 2 billion strong method of communication (like FB), or the primary platform for web search for 8 billion people (Google, that is) shouldn't be run from a single country, nor be run for profit, nor be subject to private interests. Especially regarding e.g. Google search, the global political, economic, public opinion shaping, etc power this gives a single private company, and to the country where it resides, is absurd. Such services should be more like a "total archive" than a reflection of seasonal/regional/private interests, ideologies, and wills.