4 ms·
Yeah - a private company. Before them people found ways to communicate that didn't prey on the weak parts of human psychology. Why not use those methods now? Wh
by bun_at_work 6y ago
Yeah - a private company. Before them people found ways to communicate that didn't prey on the weak parts of human psychology. Why not use those methods now? Why is a private service provider beholden to any crackpot? Is the argument being made that the government should be in charge of how private companies moderate their content? Or just that you disagree with Facebook's choice? If it's the latter, that's fine, we can disagree. If it's the former you're getting into some awfully murky logical territory.
- istjohn 6y agoMy position is that when a private company has so much power that it rivals nation states in the control it can exert on public discourse, it should be limited in similar ways to the way we limit political power with first ammendment protections. The case for such free speech protections is essentially the same as the case for the first ammendment restrictions on government power. Arguably, the case is even stronger, since private corporations have no democratic accountability.