3 ms·
That's not an accurate analogy. These platforms were happy to cater to Trump over the course of his presidency because he enriched them, this is not some moral
by wrren 6y ago
That's not an accurate analogy. These platforms were happy to cater to Trump over the course of his presidency because he enriched them, this is not some moral stance they're taking now, it's the output of a cost-benefit analysis.
Social media is now the public square, and these tech giants have incredible power to promote or suppress opinions. This isn't analogous to a bar admitting or rejecting clients, that's similar to likening the national debt to household debt; it masks a much more complex and consequential discussion.
- dannyw 6y agoI missed the part where private social media networks should be nationalised and the government should infringe on _their_ free speech rights. If I'm the CEO of Twitter and I want to ban everyone who I don't politically agree with, I should have the sole and absolute right to do so (subject to the board), the same way if I own a bookshop, I get to choose what books I stock.
- rzz3 6y ago> Social media is now the public square, and these tech giants have incredible power to promote or suppress opinions. Very well said. I’m sure the nuances of this will be missed on most, and if we dared say this at work, we’d probably be assumed to be Trump supporters and fired. I’m so worried about where this is going :(