4 ms·
The same argument could be made to allow companies to do whatever they want, including discriminate based on race, etc. And in some sense, if the market were ef
by insickness 6y ago
The same argument could be made to allow companies to do whatever they want, including discriminate based on race, etc. And in some sense, if the market were efficient enough, we wouldn't need laws against discrimination, sexual harassment, etc. The problem is that the market is not so efficient that you can just replace Facebook and Twitter with any number of services, at least not readily.
- ehnto 6y agoAdmittedly I am still on the fence about this whole thing (the denying of services), and can't fully articulate my thoughts. I do believe that these platforms are not infrastructure, that they are not public spaces, but I am no corporate apologist; from that view point, what we've done is given up control over our public discourse to corporate bodies, and I think that is the crux of the problem and what actually needs to be rectified. To put the problem into the physical world, it's as if we've decided to have all of our Town Halls and court hearings at a McDonalds, and now McDonalds won't let the people threatening violence in because they'd disturb the customers.
- insickness 6y agoTo go along with your analogy, it's as if McDonald's won't let people in who McDonald's has accused of threatening violence. These corporations have made the determination without due process. At least when the government accuses you of doing something wrong, there's ostensibly some recourse.
- nradov 6y agoMcDonald's and other businesses already do that all the time. If you threaten someone in the restaurant then the manager might refuse service, order you to leave, and barr you from ever returning. There's no due process.
- ehnto 6y agoA great point, and probably why corporate censorship is so insidious. So we have handed over control of our discourse to the companies, and we have no policy to help us.