5 ms·

Honestly I think the legal status quo is pretty close to ideal: governments may not limit speech, but platforms can clamp down on anything they want. The only p

Honestly I think the legal status quo is pretty close to ideal: governments may not limit speech, but platforms can clamp down on anything they want. The only problem with the platforms is that they still somewhat cling to the idea that they won’t censor speech, which is frankly ridiculous. Of course they will censor, they should just admit it and clamp down any speech they find abhorrent. Allow the marketplace (and marketplace of ideas) to work.

pbourke 6y ago
The status quo has brought us to today. The platforms only act when they see that the political winds have shifted. There were precisely zero “profiles in courage” among the platforms until after the election. We can expect nothing more - they’re businesses beholden to investors and regulators above all else.
- trident5000 6y ago
  I'm surprised at the lack of recognition that Google and Apple banned Parler as soon as the dems gained all 3 branches of power. It could not be more clear what the motive was. Extremism and violence are on Twitter and Facebook all day long. They're still in the app stores.
  - sergiomattei 6y ago
    Could it be because, I don't know, extremists seized the Capitol that same day?
    - trident5000 6y ago
      You know, that would make sense...if we didnt have an entire summer of rioting and looting organized on Twitter and FB where people lost their livelihoods and some their lives causing 20 billion in damage. They are still on the app store.
sojournerc 6y ago
What about DNS? ISP? There must be some line. Sure you can build your own server and connect it to the internet, but if you're handing out cards with an IP address, marketability is limited.
- pixl97 6y ago
  IP address connectivity should be a universal right. DNS is trickier, but the root level companies that provide names should be required to host your NS records (not your DNS servers themselves). After that I don't believe the internet owes you anything.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    That's where I come out too.
- ukd1 6y ago
  1.1.1.1 disagrees with you, but that's an aside. ISPs get common-carrier status - I think platforms should be able to have this protection and requirements too, if they want it. For ISPs this protects them from things folks do with their service, meaning they don't have to completely monitor your use.
  - sojournerc 6y ago
    > they don't have to completely monitor your use. Where is this coming from? I don't need any monitoring... not ISP, not government... What happened to life and liberty?
    - ukd1 6y ago
      I'm with you; pretty sure tHinK-oF-tEh-chIldRen and general fear based culture is what happened.
BrianOnHN 6y ago
> cling to the idea that they won’t censor speech What about the cost of moderation? Right now, the savings outweigh the liability.
thayne 6y ago
The problem is the amount of power held by just a few "platforms." The government may not legally be able to censor what they don't like, but if they can influence the platforms that can it amounts to the same thing.

pbourke 6y ago

The status quo has brought us to today. The platforms only act when they see that the political winds have shifted. There were precisely zero “profiles in courage” among the platforms until after the election. We can expect nothing more - they’re businesses beholden to investors and regulators above all else.

trident5000 6y ago
I'm surprised at the lack of recognition that Google and Apple banned Parler as soon as the dems gained all 3 branches of power. It could not be more clear what the motive was. Extremism and violence are on Twitter and Facebook all day long. They're still in the app stores.
- sergiomattei 6y ago
  Could it be because, I don't know, extremists seized the Capitol that same day?
  - trident5000 6y ago
    You know, that would make sense...if we didnt have an entire summer of rioting and looting organized on Twitter and FB where people lost their livelihoods and some their lives causing 20 billion in damage. They are still on the app store.

sojournerc 6y ago

What about DNS? ISP? There must be some line. Sure you can build your own server and connect it to the internet, but if you're handing out cards with an IP address, marketability is limited.

pixl97 6y ago
IP address connectivity should be a universal right. DNS is trickier, but the root level companies that provide names should be required to host your NS records (not your DNS servers themselves). After that I don't believe the internet owes you anything.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  That's where I come out too.
ukd1 6y ago
1.1.1.1 disagrees with you, but that's an aside. ISPs get common-carrier status - I think platforms should be able to have this protection and requirements too, if they want it. For ISPs this protects them from things folks do with their service, meaning they don't have to completely monitor your use.
- sojournerc 6y ago
  > they don't have to completely monitor your use. Where is this coming from? I don't need any monitoring... not ISP, not government... What happened to life and liberty?
  - ukd1 6y ago
    I'm with you; pretty sure tHinK-oF-tEh-chIldRen and general fear based culture is what happened.

BrianOnHN 6y ago

> cling to the idea that they won’t censor speech What about the cost of moderation? Right now, the savings outweigh the liability.

thayne 6y ago

The problem is the amount of power held by just a few "platforms." The government may not legally be able to censor what they don't like, but if they can influence the platforms that can it amounts to the same thing.