3 ms·
> if somebody decided to hurt you by spreading rumors We have libel laws to address that. GPs point is that Google, Facebook, et. al. are premptively censorin
by throwawayboise 5y ago
> if somebody decided to hurt you by spreading rumors
We have libel laws to address that.
GPs point is that Google, Facebook, et. al. are premptively censoring non-mainstream content just to protect themselves. They don't really care about the public.
- toiletfuneral 5y agoYou’re definitely right, but I was under the impression they exist to generate profit for shareholders, not act as a social service. Capitalism is a system for maximizing value extraction, not altruistic endeavors.
- BatFastard 5y agoHave you ever had to deal with the court system? It is VERY slow, expensive as hell, and utterly frustrating.
- NoboruWataya 5y ago> just to protect themselves To protect themselves from the public. Whether it's because consumers might take their business (and their data) elsewhere in disgust at what a particular platform is turning into, or because democratically elected lawmakers could start imposing sanctions or new regulations. Companies are always looking out for themselves, that's a given. But that doesn't mean their actions are completely divorced from public opinion.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoAnd libel laws do not stop it being n1 result on google, or random people re-posting it. Libel laws were meant to deal woth traditional media