4 ms·
If moderating their content is necessary to maintain a healthy platform (in terms that our society determines), then their inability to moderate that content me
by bun_at_work 5y ago
If moderating their content is necessary to maintain a healthy platform (in terms that our society determines), then their inability to moderate that content means they are too big and need to be cut down to a manageable size.
What real good has Facebook done? Even the few examples that can be mustered don't compete with the ongoing damage it does to our society. If they can't handle these problems at this scale (global X-billion users scale) then they should scale down.
- nradov 5y agoAs a society we don't restrict fundamental civil rights such as freedom of speech for individuals or corporations just because it might cause dune vaguely defined "damage". The legal bar is higher than that, as it should be.
- cvwright 5y agoNo but we do have anti-trust law
- nradov 5y agoThat's a non sequitur. Antitrust law has no relevance to content moderation policies or free speech rights.
- cvwright 5y agoThe argument was that Facebook is so big that they’re a danger. Limiting their speech is not compatible with US law, as you mention. So the proper solution is not to limit what they can say. It’s to stop them being so big that they are a danger.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoWho gets to decide what's "dangerous" and on what terms? What if I disagree with that assessment? What does my view count for?