4 ms·
> "So the government should instead step in" That's called regulation. We have a lot of it. Free speech isn't absolute and free markets aren't either.
by manigandham 6y ago
> "So the government should instead step in"
That's called regulation. We have a lot of it. Free speech isn't absolute and free markets aren't either.
- ineedasername 6y agofree speech isn't absolute I think your making my point. Your freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to use it on the stage built by someone else. Free markets aren't either Again, that doesn't contradict me. It would take a fundamental adjustment to the legal framework surrounding either user licensing agreements or the definition of public utilities in order to say these companies aren't allowed to enforce their current ToS. If you want to argue that laws should change, that's fine, but then we're talking about a slider between the definition & right to own private property on the one hand, and freedom of speech using 3rd party's property on the other hand. If you want to slide it more towards the later, you are taking away from the former, and vice versa. I don't know any formula for where that line should be drawn, only that in this particular example I believe the line drawn was acceptable.
- manigandham 6y agoOf course we're talking about what should happen; that's even the word you used in your first post. Public utilities and antitrust are not new concepts, nor is this really a private property issue. It's about power and control over our private lives (which should come first before corporations). The internet has changed everything in less than 2 decades and laws from a century ago are no longer sufficient. When governments start asking for social media accounts at border crossings, and Twitter claims to be a public square, and even it's CEO says that social media is a human right; we need to address the new digital equivalence of our existing protections.