4 ms·

Not going to flag it because you are right. Once you are a platform (FB, Twitter, Google, Reddit, etc...), you should only be allowed to "censor" things that a

Not going to flag it because you are right. Once you are a platform (FB, Twitter, Google, Reddit, etc...), you should only be allowed to "censor" things that are illegal.

amluto 6y ago
To what extent should a platform have editorial discretion? What sorts of actions should Facebook be permitted to take to avoid becoming 4chan? What sorts of actions should Google be permitted to take to avoid turning in a pure pile of spam? (For the latter, perhaps we should pretend that Google isn’t already mostly spam.)
- SiVal 6y ago
  This won't be a detailed answer but a principle: have as much control over each user as you like up to a certain scale followed by gradually decreasing per-user control if you keep gaining users. The company can choose whether to stay smaller and keep full control over all users or, say, federate their protocol to allow other providers to freely join the network-effects-dominated system, so users could decide for themselves which other users to subscribe to. The original company could then retain full control over their size-limited portion of the users, those still wanting "full service", by offering such benefits as "safety" from bad opinions as an incentive. This would certainly apply to cases such as Amazon, where the bigger they got, the more helpful they would have to be to small competitors instead of putting them out of business.
- starik36 6y ago
  Obviously these are not just black and white issues. There are lots of nuance here. However, I stand by the word of law being the overarching governing principle. Let me ask you a question. What if the big 3 grocery stores in town decided not to sell you groceries unless you stop doing an activity they consider distasteful but is otherwise legal? Would you still be OK with it?

4 ms·

Not going to flag it because you are right. Once you are a platform (FB, Twitter, Google, Reddit, etc...), you should only be allowed to "censor" things that a

by starik36 6y ago

Not going to flag it because you are right. Once you are a platform (FB, Twitter, Google, Reddit, etc...), you should only be allowed to "censor" things that are illegal.

amluto 6y ago
To what extent should a platform have editorial discretion? What sorts of actions should Facebook be permitted to take to avoid becoming 4chan? What sorts of actions should Google be permitted to take to avoid turning in a pure pile of spam? (For the latter, perhaps we should pretend that Google isn’t already mostly spam.)
- SiVal 6y ago
  This won't be a detailed answer but a principle: have as much control over each user as you like up to a certain scale followed by gradually decreasing per-user control if you keep gaining users. The company can choose whether to stay smaller and keep full control over all users or, say, federate their protocol to allow other providers to freely join the network-effects-dominated system, so users could decide for themselves which other users to subscribe to. The original company could then retain full control over their size-limited portion of the users, those still wanting "full service", by offering such benefits as "safety" from bad opinions as an incentive. This would certainly apply to cases such as Amazon, where the bigger they got, the more helpful they would have to be to small competitors instead of putting them out of business.
- starik36 6y ago
  Obviously these are not just black and white issues. There are lots of nuance here. However, I stand by the word of law being the overarching governing principle. Let me ask you a question. What if the big 3 grocery stores in town decided not to sell you groceries unless you stop doing an activity they consider distasteful but is otherwise legal? Would you still be OK with it?