4 ms·
Of course they ought to be allowed to affect the political system. The whole point of the First Amendment is to ensure that private citizens can act to change t
by snowwrestler 6y ago
Of course they ought to be allowed to affect the political system. The whole point of the First Amendment is to ensure that private citizens can act to change the government—the fundamental concept behind the design of the U.S. federal government.
News organizations have wielded this power for at least a century. Their decisions on what stories to publish obviously have political implications, and in some cases their editorial boards even explicitly endorse one candidate.
Facebook and Twitter are private entities, just like The NY Times or Fox News.
- manigandham 6y agoSocial media are specifically not publishers, so no they're not "just like" the NYT/Fox. They don't create content as an organization and only facilitate communication, which is exactly why section 230 is being contested.
- snowwrestler 6y agoSection 230 applies equally to any interactive computer service, whether it is operated by Twitter, Facebook, NY Times, Fox, Ycombinator, or even you or me. The First Amendment applies to everyone in the U.S.
- manigandham 6y agoYes, and since social networks are only third-party content, they should not be interfering with it otherwise they are exercising editorial control and are now first-party content.
- Karunamon 6y agoSo you see no problem whatsoever with large, nigh-monopolistic interests having absolute authority over how politics is discussed? This is not a strawman, I simply see no other way to interpret this comment.