3 ms·
It's a very good point. I believe the network effects are stronger than the free speech incentive for most people, after all, that is what current leading plat
by thejackgoode 5y ago
It's a very good point.
I believe the network effects are stronger than the free speech incentive for most people, after all, that is what current leading platforms bet on when deciding about censorship.
This can be in theory only resolved by the state. Advertisers will adjust, marketing is the most adjustable business there is.
It's a big point of dispute if a state should be able to censor someone, of course, but IMO state should not allow censorship within a global privately owned platform.
- LinuxBender 5y agoThe state is one piece of the puzzle for sure. I have a theory that if a very wealthy philanthropist not entrepreneur were to create a new platform, we may find that it remains far less censored even if/when it gets popular. Money talks too much sometimes and if the only regulations on a platform were state/federal laws then I suspect there would be far less censorship. This may be especially true if run in a country that tries to remain politically neutral. There would still be pressure to remove content that embarrasses politicians. Short of content that explicitly breaks laws, there would be no financial incentive to remove content. Oppressive countries would still block the site, but people are adaptive and will find a way to get the news out to the world.