4 ms·

I appreciate that EFF is concerned about corporate speech control, but this is completely inadequate: > if a candidate for office is suspended or banned from s

I appreciate that EFF is concerned about corporate speech control, but this is completely inadequate: > if a candidate for office is suspended or banned from social media during an election, the public needs to know why, and and the candidate needs a process to appeal the decision In a case like this company should be investigated (same way as a foreign agent meddling in elections), potentially fined and denied a licence to operate as a social media.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> In a case like this company should be ... denied a licence to operate as a social media. Gov-issued Social media licenses aren't a thing - excepting dictatorial-leaning countries like the UAE. Introducing them would be a very Big Gov thing to do.
- 5560675260 5y ago
  IMO introducing social media licences would be a net positive. Our laws and societies in general are not ready for entities like Facebook. At the moment we are ceding incredible amount of power to private company, unaccountable to general public.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    You are hinting at issues that apply to mega corporations in general. Your complaint seems to be that we aren't as used to harm done by mega-platforms - as we are to harm done by other mega corporations. Giving Govs unconstitutional power over everyone's speech seems like a poor solution to the problem of corporations that wield too much power over us.
    - 5560675260 5y ago
      I believe that we are loosing ability to combat harm done by mega-corporations in general. Allowing few mega-platforms to have control over most of the political discussions erodes this ability even further. > Giving Govs unconstitutional power over everyone's speech Could you elaborate on how would adding checks on social media platform operations would compromise everyone's speech? Looking at standards set by gun regulations, I can't agree about unconstitutionality either.
      - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
        > Could you elaborate on how would adding checks on social media platform operations would compromise everyone's speech? I don't need to. Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech The Constitution declares that Gov can't compel or restrict speech. Not even if that effort is labeled as 'adding checks'. > I believe that we are losing ability to combat harm done by mega-corporations in general Sure. This has always been the case. Monopolies, duopolies, anti-consumer collusion, etc is all anti-capitalistic. An historically effective measure against those types of anti-capitalistic corporate behavior is to break up those corps. As far as the ongoing harm done to the public interest by major corps in general, that's mostly beyond what I'm looking to get into, ATM.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> if a candidate for office is suspended or banned from social media during an election, the public needs to know why How about if a human being is suspended or banned from social media at any time, that person should know why. Why make snowflake pols a protected class?

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

> In a case like this company should be ... denied a licence to operate as a social media. Gov-issued Social media licenses aren't a thing - excepting dictatorial-leaning countries like the UAE. Introducing them would be a very Big Gov thing to do.

5560675260 5y ago
IMO introducing social media licences would be a net positive. Our laws and societies in general are not ready for entities like Facebook. At the moment we are ceding incredible amount of power to private company, unaccountable to general public.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  You are hinting at issues that apply to mega corporations in general. Your complaint seems to be that we aren't as used to harm done by mega-platforms - as we are to harm done by other mega corporations. Giving Govs unconstitutional power over everyone's speech seems like a poor solution to the problem of corporations that wield too much power over us.
  - 5560675260 5y ago
    I believe that we are loosing ability to combat harm done by mega-corporations in general. Allowing few mega-platforms to have control over most of the political discussions erodes this ability even further. > Giving Govs unconstitutional power over everyone's speech Could you elaborate on how would adding checks on social media platform operations would compromise everyone's speech? Looking at standards set by gun regulations, I can't agree about unconstitutionality either.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      > Could you elaborate on how would adding checks on social media platform operations would compromise everyone's speech? I don't need to. Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech The Constitution declares that Gov can't compel or restrict speech. Not even if that effort is labeled as 'adding checks'. > I believe that we are losing ability to combat harm done by mega-corporations in general Sure. This has always been the case. Monopolies, duopolies, anti-consumer collusion, etc is all anti-capitalistic. An historically effective measure against those types of anti-capitalistic corporate behavior is to break up those corps. As far as the ongoing harm done to the public interest by major corps in general, that's mostly beyond what I'm looking to get into, ATM.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

> if a candidate for office is suspended or banned from social media during an election, the public needs to know why How about if a human being is suspended or banned from social media at any time, that person should know why. Why make snowflake pols a protected class?