3 ms·
The article doesn't cite even one sample of a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to a presence on someone else's platform.
by ztjio 6y ago
The article doesn't cite even one sample of a violation of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to a presence on someone else's platform.
Freedom of speech protects you from oppression of your voice from the government, and even then it's heavily qualified to disallow incitement and such.
As far as I can tell there is no violation at all. In fact, I applaud the non-government organizations taking on the absolutely critical and necessary act of moderating their platforms, they should be doing it vastly more than they are.
The whole point of the internet is you can go and put up your own thing. Thinking the Googles and Facebooks have an obligation to amplify your voice no matter what you say is asinine and flat out wrong.
If platforms were responsible for what they actually distribute there would be fewer of these mega platforms and the world would be dramatically better off for it.
Let these doctors put their own video on their own website on their own computers. If ISPs decided to censor that then I'll start to see your side because ISP choice is limited at least in part by government restriction.
But even then, the constitution doesn't ever mention the internet or anything like it. These people can all go out in public and say what they like still.
They have not had any rights violated.
- JPKab 6y ago"In fact, I applaud the non-government organizations taking on the absolutely critical and necessary act of moderating their platforms, they should be doing it vastly more than they are." To quote a Star Wars movie, "this is how democracies die, with thunderous applause". These platforms are monopolies due to network effects. You know that. When someone says that they're going to shut down Facebook post for organizing protests, they're not motivated to not have the posting be present. Their motivation is to prevent the protest from happening in the actual physical space. Politicians have pressured these platforms to do this. Again the agenda isn't to remove offensive content. The agenda is controlling the public. If that doesn't disturb you then you don't really get it.