3 ms·
right, in principle there is nothing wrong (imo, at least) with a private company deciding what can/cannot be said on its online properties. we might, as indivi
by leetcrew 6y ago
right, in principle there is nothing wrong (imo, at least) with a private company deciding what can/cannot be said on its online properties. we might, as individuals, pressure a company to change it's moderation policy, but we should not seek to outlaw moderation.
of course, this doesn't work so well in practice when all the viable platforms are controlled by a few huge companies that are more or less ideologically aligned. in my view, this is more of an antitrust issue than a freedom of speech issue. moderation on social media would be a non-issue if there were a reasonable range of platforms to choose from. hateful and/or misleading content would also be far less impactful if uploading a single video to the youtube didn't have the potential of reaching an enormous audience.
- Spartan-S63 6y agoI don't disagree with this. It is a monopoly problem. However, what this article suggests and a lot of other solutions suggest is patching the symptom and not getting to the root of the problem. We've lost our stomach for stimulating competitive marketplaces and forgotten that a sufficiently competitive market will settle on an optimal outcome. That does mean regulation is required and it does mean that breakups are required. That's treating the root cause and not just the symptom.
- d1zzy 6y agoSo solutions should be focused on lowering the power of Youtube by making it easy to have competition to it but instead it seems to me the opposite is being proposed: with every new regulation that companies like Youtube have to follow, the harder the regulation is to enforce the harder it is for competitors to get into the market (so essentially these regulations are building a moat around YouTube). That doesn't seem to me like the right goal here.