3 ms·

The case you linked is about an entire town that was owned by one company, and that the ability to remove someone from your sidewalk for distributing materials

• quotemstr 6y ago
  > IMO the idea that a handful of private companies with completely different business models and content moderation policies have a 'collective monopoly' on public communication is ridiculous I have the opposite opinion: these companies do collectively cartelize public speech. People who get banned from one platform are frequently banned from others soon after, especially if notorious. These companies also all have content policies prohibiting the same constitutionally-protected speech, e.g. on some subjects relating to the recent election. Censorship doesn't have to be binary to be censorship: an environment in which your reach is reduced to practically nothing if you have one viewpoint and amplified into the stratosphere where you have the opposite viewpoint is an environment antithetical to the purpose of the first amendment, which is about creating an open and honest marketplace for ideas. Being able to talk about some idea in your kitchen but not on the internet is an inadequate level of free speech protection for today's world. There's nothing wrong with requiring neutrality from social media companies. Common carrier regulations wouldn't violate their free speech rights: these corporations aren't speaking in their own voices, but are instead carrying the speech of others. And besides: corporations are not natural persons and we should abridge their rights in order to preserve the rights of real people.
  • _dibly 6y ago
    >People who get banned from one platform are frequently banned from others soon after, especially if notorious. Can you give us a few examples? >These companies also all have content policies prohibiting the same constitutionally-protected speech As someone has already pointed out to you, the constitution protects you from the government, not from the moderation of a private company who you choose to publish your opinions on. >Censorship doesn't have to be binary to be censorship: an environment in which your reach is reduced to practically nothing if you have one viewpoint and amplified into the stratosphere where you have the opposite viewpoint is an environment antithetical to the purpose of the first amendment, which is about creating an open and honest marketplace for ideas You just described every cable news outlet in the United States. The idea that freedom of speech means 'requiring neutrality' is just painfully misinformed. You can talk about literally anything you want on the internet. But you're conflating a few social media platforms with vastly different moderation policies, user bases, and business models into one mass of 'public communication'. >There's nothing wrong with requiring neutrality from social media companies. I couldn't disagree more. Who will be the decider in what 'neutrality' means? Because that's about as loaded of a political term as you can get in this day and age. I don't understand what an even remotely reasonable interpretation of this policy would be where individual private companies were forced to publish or barred from removing content that goes against their content moderation policy.
• AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Twitter is used by about 1 in 10 Americans I feel confident that 1 in 10 Americans is more people than lived in the aforementioned company town. The relevant market isn't "America" but rather that audience on Twitter. Can you reach some of the same people via Facebook? Perhaps. But not all of them. And my suspicion is that the number you can't is still quite a lot larger than the number of people who lived in that company town.
  • _dibly 6y ago
    That's not how that works. The point was that 10 in 10 Americans in that town had to follow the private company's restrictions because they controlled the entire town. What you're saying has nothing to do with the analogy GP was making which was that the private company had a monopoly on sidewalks in the town, but Twitter doesn't control all of the sidewalks in town, it controls about 10% of them. And even if the aggregation of Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Discord run about 90% of the sidewalks, those companies are all independent of each other and have their own business models and content moderation policies. Plus, new sidewalks are being built all the time. Discord and Reddit have grown in popularity vastly in more recent years, at what point do we add new companies into this tangled analogy, or take them out?
    • AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > What you're saying has nothing to do with the analogy GP was making which was that the private company had a monopoly on sidewalks in the town, but Twitter doesn't control all of the sidewalks in town, it controls about 10% of them. They control 10% of the sidewalks in the country. That's way more than the company town ever did -- it's hundreds of towns worth of sidewalks. And you as a speaker can't use the Facebook sidewalks instead of Twitter unless they had all the same people walking on them (e.g. were part of the same federated system), which they're not. If you want to reach your entire audience, you have to use both at once. Twitter can evict you from an audience bigger than Texas with no other way to reach them, and your argument is that a monopoly on Texas is only 10% of the country.
      • 6y ago