4 ms·
Judge, jury, and executioner of the behavior they allow on their property. Let’s not mix this up with the roles in the legal system that actually have those pow
by edmundsauto 6y ago
Judge, jury, and executioner of the behavior they allow on their property. Let’s not mix this up with the roles in the legal system that actually have those powers.
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoSocial media is the public square in 2020. There's no way to claim we still have free speech while all speech is done in a private company's territory where said freedom "does not apply". So realistically, we have two options: Regulate what those companies are allowed to do and hold them liable for what they do, or nationalize them so that we can once again treat them as public space.
- edmundsauto 6y agoI don’t concede that social media is the public square; at most, it is one piece. It also seems to be one of the less useful, judging by the overall timbre of the engagement. Even if true, what right does the govt or people have to reprieve the companies of their property rights? Nationalization is not generally in line with our system of laws in the US.
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoI certainly don't think nationalization is the ideal outcome. I'd hate for Twitter to become "the" official state communication medium. I'd far rather we stop making social media public squares by requiring social use decentralized protocols, like email. But if we're not nationalizing, we need to accept that companies operating these platforms must at minimum be regulated, just like privately owned utilities are. They're conduct should be transparent, the public should be able to inspect the algorithms in use, and most crucially, these companies must be liable for their behavior. And that is directly contrary to the goals of Section 230.