3 ms·

How is it hard to understand that private companies can set their own terms of use? I'm having a real hard time understanding how anyone, especially business p

by r0s 6y ago

How is it hard to understand that private companies can set their own terms of use? I'm having a real hard time understanding how anyone, especially business people can misunderstand this. Simple: It's not censorship.

rocqua 6y ago
Weird thing is the current 'public forum', i.e. the place where debate is had, is fully run by private companies. The fact that access to the public forum these days requires abiding by a ToS enforced by a private, no-apeal process is bad.
- sdwa 6y ago
  The simple truth is that these knuckle-draggers plotting for Mike Pence to be executed by firing squad would have at every point in the past never been able to reach a "public forum" of any kind. For all the complaints that we need to engage positively with such wonderfully civil discourse, it's only by virtue of the internet that they're being heard at all. Society previously was very good at ignoring these people, and society was healthier for it.
- r0s 6y ago
  > the place where debate is had. No, it's not. Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be. And, there must be some types of moderation to all speech, all.
  - rocqua 6y ago
    > And, there must be some types of moderation to all speech, all. There definitely needs to be moderation. But having the power to moderate speech on such a significant platform in the hands of 3 private parties is bad. Not that I think their recent decisions are wrong. But the lack of recourse is scary, and dangerous. Not just dangerous because 'what if they abuse it'. It is dangerous because people censored by them are much more likely to feel that it _is_ abuse. Hence they don't take the signal and instead have a massive sense of injustice. "How can a decision so big, without appeal being possible, be fair" they think. > Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be. Social media is the sole source of news and discussion for a lot of people. Sure, there are alternatives, but they fail to reach a large amount of people.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Ah yes, we’re back to “the bakery is a private company and did nothing wrong”
- r0s 6y ago
  I think that particular bakery issue is more nuanced than you're making it out to be.

by r0s 6y ago

rocqua 6y ago

Weird thing is the current 'public forum', i.e. the place where debate is had, is fully run by private companies. The fact that access to the public forum these days requires abiding by a ToS enforced by a private, no-apeal process is bad.

sdwa 6y ago
The simple truth is that these knuckle-draggers plotting for Mike Pence to be executed by firing squad would have at every point in the past never been able to reach a "public forum" of any kind. For all the complaints that we need to engage positively with such wonderfully civil discourse, it's only by virtue of the internet that they're being heard at all. Society previously was very good at ignoring these people, and society was healthier for it.
r0s 6y ago
> the place where debate is had. No, it's not. Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be. And, there must be some types of moderation to all speech, all.
- rocqua 6y ago
  > And, there must be some types of moderation to all speech, all. There definitely needs to be moderation. But having the power to moderate speech on such a significant platform in the hands of 3 private parties is bad. Not that I think their recent decisions are wrong. But the lack of recourse is scary, and dangerous. Not just dangerous because 'what if they abuse it'. It is dangerous because people censored by them are much more likely to feel that it _is_ abuse. Hence they don't take the signal and instead have a massive sense of injustice. "How can a decision so big, without appeal being possible, be fair" they think. > Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be. Social media is the sole source of news and discussion for a lot of people. Sure, there are alternatives, but they fail to reach a large amount of people.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

Ah yes, we’re back to “the bakery is a private company and did nothing wrong”

r0s 6y ago
I think that particular bakery issue is more nuanced than you're making it out to be.