3 ms·

> IMO the idea that a handful of private companies with completely different business models and content moderation policies have a 'collective monopoly' on pub

> 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.

_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.