3 ms·
> Unfortunately platforms that reach billions must prioritize the danger of misinformation spreading No, they don't. See, this is the core problem, that premis
by RonanTheGrey 6y ago
> Unfortunately platforms that reach billions must prioritize the danger of misinformation spreading
No, they don't. See, this is the core problem, that premise: that's the job of governments. And in the US, the law says the government doesn't get to do that.
Arguing that entities who are arguably more powerful than the government should be doing it is literally arguing for the dictionary definition of fascism.
- joshuamorton 6y agoActually in the US it's explicitly not the job of government, hence the bill of rights. Individuals, and collections thereof, however, are free to censor whomever they want. This misguided idea that your protection from government censorship affects your contractual agreement with me needs to stop.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago> Actually in the US it's explicitly not the job of government, hence the bill of rights. You need to read my comment again. In the US, it is NOBODY'S JOB. > This misguided idea that your protection from government censorship affects your contractual agreement with me needs to stop. Repeat after me: "I am not Google. I am not Google. I am not Google. I don't affect the lives of billions of people. I don't affect the lives of billions of people."
- joshuamorton 6y agoI did. Are you suggesting that legally, Google is unable to do this, or that ethically there is some principle that says that large collections of people should have fewer rights than individuals? And therefore that the government should restrict the speech rights of those groups?