4 ms·

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

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.