4 ms·
Although I disagree with it completely, I would defend the right of private platforms, like Google and Twitter to take down whatever content they like. When th
by rpiguy 6y ago
Although I disagree with it completely, I would defend the right of private platforms, like Google and Twitter to take down whatever content they like.
When the government starts to mandate what information can and cannot be shared, that is where I draw the line.
What confuses the issue is that the government and big corporations appear to be slowly merging into one elite, ruling body. Not sure how to solve the issue when the lines become more and more blurred.
- gshdg 6y agoPerhaps by putting our concern into preventing the lines from blurring more than into worrying about private platform censorship in and of itself?
- ksk 6y agoThere aren't any public platforms to voice opinions, so if you are cancelled from private platforms, then you are essentially silenced into submission. In my opinion, it's worse if the government is not involved, you can at-least vote the current government out.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 6y agoThere are certainly public platforms to voice opinions, but they are just as certainly drowned out by or hidden from the rest of the platforms. Independent, peer to peer social media, for example, “dark web”, or just plain old WWW / Gopher /forums discovered without the private search platforms. On one level, it isn’t that there aren’t public platforms, it’s that the market for public speech is a niche market that isn’t really bought into by the public.
- netsharc 6y agoI wonder if there's money to be made in selling a search engine to a government (of a country that cares about free speech, obviously). Or to look it the other way, if there is a job to be had by marketing the idea/yourself to a government agency. And the government might do it to sell goodwill to the users, imagine having "This search engine is provided to you by Elbonia. Click here to learn more about Elbonia. Click here to find flights to Elbonia" at the bottom of every search result page.
- ksk 6y ago>Independent, peer to peer social media, for example, “dark web”, or just plain old WWW / Gopher /forums discovered without the private search platforms. Those are still private platforms. With enough pressure you can get an ISP to cancel someones service, or get a domain service/hosting provider to cancel them, etc, etc.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 6y agoElectricity is a private platform too, so by your argument, with enough pressure you could get a utility to cancel the power for a public platform.
- ksk 6y agoNo that is not my argument at all.
- tomohawk 6y agoYoutube is Google's video monopoly. If there was an actual market with many providers, then you might make a case. However, a monopolist doesn't get to make these kinds of decisions. Would we stand for it if the local electric monopoly started pulling the plug on abortion clinics? On churches? A monopoly gets limited discretion in exchange for the monopoly.
- didgeoridoo 6y agoYou’re talking about government-granted monopolies, like your electric company example. YouTube is merely limited in its ability to use its pricing power to squeeze its customers without attracting regulatory attention. And we aren’t the customer — the advertisers are. I don’t think they’re bothered one bit by all this.
- vl 6y agoYouTube became possible because Google funneled billions of dollars from other divisions for many years until competition was completely napalmed out and finally it became profitable. No other company or private investors can do this kind of investment for so many years. Google should be split up.
- pnako 6y agoI would defend the right of private platforms to hunt and execute opponents. When the governments starts doing it, that is where I draw the line.
- apatters 6y agoThe solution to this, or at least the first step, is simple. It's to recognize that Google is an illegal monopoly, contact your representatives and demand enforcement of the antitrust laws on the books. This is already in process, 48 states are investigating Google today. Support it. Support lawmakers who support it. More broadly a very large wave of antitrust reform is badly needed in the United States and this is a good place to start. The United States needs free and competitive markets that aren't controlled by illegal monopolies. One of the benefits of free and competitive markets will be that there will be more companies promoting more platforms, but these companies will be less powerful. Then it won't be such a big deal if one of them decides to censor a certain type of content. The answer is to support and elect representatives who will enforce the law against these lawbreaking companies.
- arvinsim 6y agoSo why only Google? Why not Facebook, Twitter, Apple?
- baryphonic 6y agoThe common law has treated many monopoly platforms as common carriers for quite a long time. In the US, this has been explicitly enacted via statute for certain types of carriers (indeed, this is what the FCC Title I vs Title II issue was about for ISPs). While I agree that ordinary private companies that are basically competitive should have few if any restrictions, it seems quite suboptimal to permit monopolies (including Google, Facebook or Amazon) to make extremely arbitrary decisions on a whim with no review.
- nomel 6y agoRelated, I noticed what looked like coronavirus censorship, from Google, when I tried to search for any constitutional analysis of the shelter at home orders back in March. I was curious and just wanted to know. I assumed I would find posts from UCLA, Harvard, anything, but there was almost nothing. Bing/DuckDuckGo gave a full page of results, the top few being reputable sources. Searching now, everything looks normal. I assume it was the result of an automated filter seeing a bunch of bad actors posting about the topic, rather than a conscious action, but it was interesting seeing how inaccessible the information became, at the time.