4 ms·
This is the very sort of thing that led to the creation of common carrier status, with the tradeoffs involved. It seems to me to be the solution with ISPs and n
by teorema 6y ago
This is the very sort of thing that led to the creation of common carrier status, with the tradeoffs involved. It seems to me to be the solution with ISPs and net neutrality, and there probably should be something similar with sites like Twitter (which is probably the point of Section 230).
I personally feel like moderation has gone way too far with social media, even though I'm far from politically conservative and definitely not a supporter of Trump. I think sites should lose some protected status if they start moderating excessively, as an incentive to moderate even less. Conversely, I think they should be granted a degree of immunity if they do.
- zuminator 6y agoA difference between common carriers like the phone company and the post office vs. internet websites is that your communication on common carriers is usually private. There's no reason for any moderation to take place. Whereas on a web forum such as this, moderation is necessary for conversations to not descend into chaos. Frankly I don't understand why people think moderation has gone too far. Is it that e.g. Twitter shouldn't be allowed to silence unpopular opinions because silencing unpopular opinions is always bad? Or is it that it's bad because Twitter is huge and influential. Would you have a problem with someone silencing a gun control fanatic who has appeared unwelcome on their private little gun collectors' website?