4 ms·

Yes, because, in different parts of the world, laws are different. EU is saying these orgs are to powerful. How is that bad? They are planning on crafting laws

Yes, because, in different parts of the world, laws are different. EU is saying these orgs are to powerful. How is that bad? They are planning on crafting laws to limit the abuse potential of these companies. If a company rules are illegal in an area, then it should 100% be followed. Look at how the NYtimes for a while did not allow California residents who signed up online, cancel online. Ironically, also a media company. How about ethics in general then? Facebook has been implicated in assisting genocide, the methodological execution of people in Myanmar - yet, people are focused on one recent event that, when you compare the effects of assisting a government in executing it's own people, to people using it as a platform to come together and raid the capitol - it seems to fall quite flat. Yes, humans lost their life in both examples, but how, why do we come together now that it is in our own backyard, vs happening in a distant part of the world? How do you quantify humanity value/loss of life or allow these social media orgs, that operate as an outlet, a communication platform, that bond "networks" together this unlimited power?

proactivesvcs 6y ago
I wonder if there is a conflation (or I am misunderstanding) that the big social media orgs have some sort of duty to uphold freedom of speech but are at the same time vilified by some for banning abusive users. My criticisms align with yours it seems - that they have been complicit in perpetrating abuse for some time, including spilling of blood, and have only now, now the "optics are bad", decided to act. I guess my argument is that they should be allowed to ban any user for breaking their rules - as long as those rules are deemed fair and legal - and no organisation that does so should be decried by lawmakers or citizens for suppressing speech.

proactivesvcs 6y ago

I wonder if there is a conflation (or I am misunderstanding) that the big social media orgs have some sort of duty to uphold freedom of speech but are at the same time vilified by some for banning abusive users. My criticisms align with yours it seems - that they have been complicit in perpetrating abuse for some time, including spilling of blood, and have only now, now the "optics are bad", decided to act. I guess my argument is that they should be allowed to ban any user for breaking their rules - as long as those rules are deemed fair and legal - and no organisation that does so should be decried by lawmakers or citizens for suppressing speech.