4 ms·

Private companies should be able to censor political speech, period. If it's my desire to build a platform that is favorable to certain types of speech, that's

Private companies should be able to censor political speech, period. If it's my desire to build a platform that is favorable to certain types of speech, that's my right and the government shouldn't be forcing me to modify my platform to rebroadcast speech I disagree with. In terms of conservative complaints about leftist censorship, I have to simply roll my eyes. The conservatives complaining about big tech don't care about censorship, they only care about the dominance of their own political messages. This is obvious when you ask them about "democratizing speech" on platforms they already dominate like cable news and talk radio. Remember the fairness doctrine? They hated the idea of having the government dictate the political composition of the airwaves, but when it comes to big tech, suddenly they want to nationalize the platforms to their own benefit. I find the effort extremely disingenuous. Also, something something downvotes something something censorship!!

Chris_Chambers 7y ago
Private social media companies that reach a certain size should be forcibly nationalized and transformed into taxpayer funded instruments of the first amendment with zero censorship. The former owners should be compensated with so much money that it’s impossible they’d be upset about the blessing of retiring early and never working again unless their true goal all along was to use their power in a treasonous fashion. Anyone who disagrees with me should be hanged for treason. Anyone still working at the company after it’s nationalized who is found working on or implementing any form of censorship should be hanged for treason.
Grumbledour 7y ago
I think you are right. But I would also argue that such censorship should be as transparent as possible. Though the real question is, at a certain size of user base, does a private space not become a public one? Or rather, if there is no alternative of not having censorship, no place else to go, does the censorship not become a problem then? I am not sure what the solution here would be, actually, but while I think if people don't like facebooks/twitters censorship they should just go somewhere else, I would not hold the same view for example on email providers.
- root_axis 7y ago
  I would be willing to pay taxes to fund a government run online "public square" that could not be legally censored, but I am fundamentally opposed to taking control of privately owned websites and forcing the owners to host content that they disagree with, especially political content. I disagree with the idea that the number of people visiting a website is an important metric in determining the owner's property rights. > at a certain size of user base, does a private space not become a public one I think that's a question worth exploring, but I think any honest discussion of this idea has to acknowledge that most of these social media companies are essentially trivial entertainment sites and that if we are really trying to designate access to twitter as a basic human right we must first consider why life saving drugs, housing, and healthcare are not human rights.
commandlinefan 7y ago
> government shouldn't be forcing me See, here we go: he says “X is bad” and you immediately respond with “what do you mean the government should outlaw X?!” Nobody’s talking about government intervention - he actually spends a lot of time explicitly saying he isn’t.

Chris_Chambers 7y ago

Private social media companies that reach a certain size should be forcibly nationalized and transformed into taxpayer funded instruments of the first amendment with zero censorship. The former owners should be compensated with so much money that it’s impossible they’d be upset about the blessing of retiring early and never working again unless their true goal all along was to use their power in a treasonous fashion. Anyone who disagrees with me should be hanged for treason. Anyone still working at the company after it’s nationalized who is found working on or implementing any form of censorship should be hanged for treason.

Grumbledour 7y ago

I think you are right. But I would also argue that such censorship should be as transparent as possible. Though the real question is, at a certain size of user base, does a private space not become a public one? Or rather, if there is no alternative of not having censorship, no place else to go, does the censorship not become a problem then? I am not sure what the solution here would be, actually, but while I think if people don't like facebooks/twitters censorship they should just go somewhere else, I would not hold the same view for example on email providers.

root_axis 7y ago
I would be willing to pay taxes to fund a government run online "public square" that could not be legally censored, but I am fundamentally opposed to taking control of privately owned websites and forcing the owners to host content that they disagree with, especially political content. I disagree with the idea that the number of people visiting a website is an important metric in determining the owner's property rights. > at a certain size of user base, does a private space not become a public one I think that's a question worth exploring, but I think any honest discussion of this idea has to acknowledge that most of these social media companies are essentially trivial entertainment sites and that if we are really trying to designate access to twitter as a basic human right we must first consider why life saving drugs, housing, and healthcare are not human rights.

commandlinefan 7y ago

> government shouldn't be forcing me See, here we go: he says “X is bad” and you immediately respond with “what do you mean the government should outlaw X?!” Nobody’s talking about government intervention - he actually spends a lot of time explicitly saying he isn’t.