3 ms·
No, it's a more fundamental disagreement than what constitutes a public vs private space, it's a disagreement about who gets to choose. If a private corporation
by akiselev 6y ago
No, it's a more fundamental disagreement than what constitutes a public vs private space, it's a disagreement about who gets to choose. If a private corporation gets to decide by virtue of ownership - property rights granted by societal contract to begin with - then they have unilateral, unaccountable power over society. We are in the process of deciding the nature of corporate personhood and how applicable the Bill of Rights is to organizations so what is "public" and "private" is still an open question.
- imustbeevil 6y ago> If a private corporation gets to decide by virtue of ownership - property rights granted by societal contract to begin with - then they have unilateral, unaccountable power over society. Again, I have the opposite interpretation. If the government gives a private organization property rights, the government is the holder of power over society. The organization has authority over what the government gave it the rights to, and the government gave them the right (with section 230) to moderate their property in the way they are now.
- akiselev 6y ago> The organization has authority over what the government gave it the rights to, and the government gave them the right (with section 230) to moderate their property in the way they are now. I think we're in agreement. Laws are not immutable which is what I'm getting at. We're past the "public" vs "private" debate, we're now debating whether to change laws and adjust which rights private organizations have - whether to adjust or repeal 230 entirely.