4 ms·

I think there needs to be rules about transparency for media companies. In court you have to argue about and explain any disallowance of evidence; however in th

I think there needs to be rules about transparency for media companies. In court you have to argue about and explain any disallowance of evidence; however in the court of public opinion, the media, no such rules apply. Obviously you have to be careful when coming up with rules for government regulation of media, but the laissez faire thing we're doing now doesn't seem to be heading on a positive trendline.

RIMR 6y ago
You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech by congress... Twitter isn't the government, and they don't control speech anywhere but on the platform that they own. They could ban the American Flag and they still wouldn't owe anyone an explanation short of their stakeholders who are going to want to know how this factors into Twitter's only business: Selling ads.
- hamsterOnWheel 6y ago
  >You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech Many people and organizations have their free speech regulated because of the ability of speech to do harm (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). Saying something trite about rights is not an argument. these companies have a huge responsibility to our democracy, and treating them as if they're just another company is exactly what allows them to be so cynical about making decisions calculated to increase ad revenue even when they're harmful to democracy.
  - anthonypasq 6y ago
    why should we care whether its harmful to democracy? if the population of a democracy doesnt want to be a democracy anymore, that seems perfectly legitimate
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chroem- 6y ago
  > You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech by congress... There is a large amount of legal precedent in the US for the government being able to compel speech of private businesses, both in laws and court rulings. If you don't believe me, go look at your nearest "nutrition facts" label. But we have precedents that go much deeper than that, up to and including compelled speech that goes against the religious principles of a business's founders. There is no realistic argument for the government being unable to compel a private company like Twitter to cease censoring posts on political grounds.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    They're not unable, it's just not how the laws are structured currently - regulation is always an option. Nutrition labels weren't required pre-1990[0], but then regulation made them required, so you can look at the current amount of social media regulation as a result of the United States' governance over the past 20 years. 0: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209859/#_ddd00035_ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209859/#_ddd00035_
- jb775 6y ago
  Many would agree that communication platforms are essentially becoming public utilities, and should be treated as such. Twitter may only have the ability to control speech on the "platform they own", but the shockwaves caused by calculated censorship impact very far outside the walls of the platform itself. When a platform with this type of power starts abusing it immediately before a major election, it's time to rethink the governmental protections afforded to them in order to feasibly exist.

RIMR 6y ago

You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech by congress... Twitter isn't the government, and they don't control speech anywhere but on the platform that they own. They could ban the American Flag and they still wouldn't owe anyone an explanation short of their stakeholders who are going to want to know how this factors into Twitter's only business: Selling ads.

hamsterOnWheel 6y ago
>You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech Many people and organizations have their free speech regulated because of the ability of speech to do harm (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). Saying something trite about rights is not an argument. these companies have a huge responsibility to our democracy, and treating them as if they're just another company is exactly what allows them to be so cynical about making decisions calculated to increase ad revenue even when they're harmful to democracy.
- anthonypasq 6y ago
  why should we care whether its harmful to democracy? if the population of a democracy doesnt want to be a democracy anymore, that seems perfectly legitimate
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chroem- 6y ago
> You are describing the abridging private organizations' right to free speech by congress... There is a large amount of legal precedent in the US for the government being able to compel speech of private businesses, both in laws and court rulings. If you don't believe me, go look at your nearest "nutrition facts" label. But we have precedents that go much deeper than that, up to and including compelled speech that goes against the religious principles of a business's founders. There is no realistic argument for the government being unable to compel a private company like Twitter to cease censoring posts on political grounds.
- judge2020 6y ago
  They're not unable, it's just not how the laws are structured currently - regulation is always an option. Nutrition labels weren't required pre-1990[0], but then regulation made them required, so you can look at the current amount of social media regulation as a result of the United States' governance over the past 20 years. 0: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209859/#_ddd00035_ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209859/#_ddd00035_
jb775 6y ago
Many would agree that communication platforms are essentially becoming public utilities, and should be treated as such. Twitter may only have the ability to control speech on the "platform they own", but the shockwaves caused by calculated censorship impact very far outside the walls of the platform itself. When a platform with this type of power starts abusing it immediately before a major election, it's time to rethink the governmental protections afforded to them in order to feasibly exist.