4 ms·

It's not a problem though. Private platforms, whether digital or not, do not have to carry your message. That's also a part of free expression. Fox is free to i

It's not a problem though. Private platforms, whether digital or not, do not have to carry your message. That's also a part of free expression. Fox is free to ignore whomever they choose. Everyone gets rights, not just the platform, not just the user. The user can speak whatever he wants, and so can the platform. There are good reasons for this, it allows for propaganda portals like fox news, but it also allows for real, well researched journalism like propublica.

nl 7y ago
>>> ... since they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms. >> .. Yes it's a problem. It's unclear it it limited to digital platforms. > It's not a problem though... You didn't seem to address the OP's issue ("they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms") here at all?
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Because you not knowing about a message is not a problem the government should solve.
  - nl 7y ago
    Oh, right. It's a problem because of filter bubbles. That doesn't mean government intervention is appropriate though.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Is your mind able to distinguish between a problem in general, and a problem that the government should solve? This is kind of a two part problem: an ability to realize the difference (an ability that seems largely constrained by evolution), and an ability to admit it publically. I enjoy posing "philosophical" questions like this and observing if interest in the topic vanishes.
deogeo 7y ago
You explained well why it's legal, but not why it's not a problem. Many things that are, and even should be legal, are also problems. Such as Fox ignoring whoever they choose - they certainly should have that right, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem when they present a misleading narrative.

4 ms·

It's not a problem though. Private platforms, whether digital or not, do not have to carry your message. That's also a part of free expression. Fox is free to i

by bilbo0s 7y ago

nl 7y ago
>>> ... since they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms. >> .. Yes it's a problem. It's unclear it it limited to digital platforms. > It's not a problem though... You didn't seem to address the OP's issue ("they don't even know the message exists, they won't be seeking it out on alternative platforms") here at all?
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Because you not knowing about a message is not a problem the government should solve.
  - nl 7y ago
    Oh, right. It's a problem because of filter bubbles. That doesn't mean government intervention is appropriate though.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Is your mind able to distinguish between a problem in general, and a problem that the government should solve? This is kind of a two part problem: an ability to realize the difference (an ability that seems largely constrained by evolution), and an ability to admit it publically. I enjoy posing "philosophical" questions like this and observing if interest in the topic vanishes.
deogeo 7y ago
You explained well why it's legal, but not why it's not a problem. Many things that are, and even should be legal, are also problems. Such as Fox ignoring whoever they choose - they certainly should have that right, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem when they present a misleading narrative.