4 ms·
I think there needs to be updated thought leadership on what qualifies as "common carrier" and what doesn't. Whether gov't or private, if a platform is primari
by bcheung 6y ago
I think there needs to be updated thought leadership on what qualifies as "common carrier" and what doesn't.
Whether gov't or private, if a platform is primarily promoted as an open communication channel then I think that some, if not all, aspects of "common carrier" laws should apply.
Social media platforms would not have the trust and would not have been adopted as quickly if they started off censoring as much as they do now. In that regard, they presented themselves as open and impartial, then shifted once they achieved sufficient critical mass.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- treeman79 6y agoHow about that google is a monopoly on search and ad tech.
- stuart78 6y agoYouTube censors content all the time. Pornography and pirated content, being just the most obvious examples. Others that want censored content have only to look to other sites to find that content. In my opinion, YouTube should (and does) have content standards, and be extremely free in how they determine them. People certainly have a right to publish and consume conspiracy theories, but I don't understand why YouTube has anything close to an obligation to host or promote them.