2 ms·

Here is the New York Post's reply to to this (https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-the-post-for-reporting-the-news/ https://nypost.com/2021

Here is the New York Post's reply to to this (https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-the-post-for-reporting-the-news/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/16/social-media-again-silences-th...): > Our article features some pictures of the properties she bought, but includes no addresses, in fact doesn’t even say the city in some cases. Our reporter compiled the information from public records. It's incredible that they don't allow this information but were completely fine with people discussing Trump's private tax returns, which were illegally obtained. The reality is that big tech companies and social media are not helping ideas live or die by their merit, but rather hiding good ideas from reaching recipients who can decide what they want to do with that information themselves. I think the most offensive part of this censorship, however, is that Facebook is also censoring this link from private messenger conversations. Abigail Shrier put it well (https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1382774842986954753 https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1382774842986954753): > So Facebook is now effectively opening your mail and reading the contents for ideologically objectionable material. > Anyone worried?

pvg 6y ago
Trump was the president of the United States, under 24/7 protection then and for the rest of his life. Most people, even fairly notable ones, don't have that luxury. Tabloids publish potentially harmful information with reasonable frequency and FB refusing to republish a tabloid piece is not a meaningful impediment to the dissemination of ideas.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  You're using speculation and a one-sided determination about publicly available information being harmful to justify censorship. It is completely unreasonable for an organization as large, influential, and powerful as Facebook (or Twitter) to censor ideas from one half of the country due to the biases of their employees and leaders. And yes, it is a meaningful impediment to dissemination of ideas since virtually all our society's conversations today take place on platforms owned by big tech companies. Our fundamental rights to free speech have been eroded by outsourcing the public town square to these companies that act in discriminatory ways. It's time to break them up, treat them as utilities, and regulate them heavily to uphold principles of free speech
  - pvg 6y ago
    I'm not 'using speculation', I'm simply pointing out the analogy you're making is flawed and not very, you know, analogous.

pvg 6y ago

Trump was the president of the United States, under 24/7 protection then and for the rest of his life. Most people, even fairly notable ones, don't have that luxury. Tabloids publish potentially harmful information with reasonable frequency and FB refusing to republish a tabloid piece is not a meaningful impediment to the dissemination of ideas.

throwawaysea 6y ago
You're using speculation and a one-sided determination about publicly available information being harmful to justify censorship. It is completely unreasonable for an organization as large, influential, and powerful as Facebook (or Twitter) to censor ideas from one half of the country due to the biases of their employees and leaders. And yes, it is a meaningful impediment to dissemination of ideas since virtually all our society's conversations today take place on platforms owned by big tech companies. Our fundamental rights to free speech have been eroded by outsourcing the public town square to these companies that act in discriminatory ways. It's time to break them up, treat them as utilities, and regulate them heavily to uphold principles of free speech
- pvg 6y ago
  I'm not 'using speculation', I'm simply pointing out the analogy you're making is flawed and not very, you know, analogous.