4 ms·
But that puts us back where we started: FB, et. al., will argue that they are blocking unwanted messages based on reasonable analytics. So we will continue to
by labcomputer 5y ago
But that puts us back where we started:
FB, et. al., will argue that they are blocking unwanted messages based on reasonable analytics. So we will continue to see exactly the same type of feed curation as today.
The only difference (maybe) is that a platform (probably) can't just wholesale ban a particular person... but I bet that even the phone company is allowed to ban a person is deemed to be sufficiently abusive or harassing.
The fundamental problem is that there is a vocal minority who really, really don't want to believe that they are the vocal minority who everyone else wants to ignore. There isn't some magic set of laws and regulations you can create to force the silent majority to listen to you when they think you're dumb and annoying.
The first amendment grants you the right to speak and the right for people (who wish to) to listen, but it doesn't grant you the right to an audience for your speech.
- amadeuspagel 5y agoIf you really believe that applying common carrier laws to social media companies, with the same exception for spam that phone companies have, wouldn't make a difference, you have no reason to oppose that, right?
- naasking 5y ago> There isn't some magic set of laws and regulations you can create to force the silent majority to listen to you when they think you're dumb and annoying. You're not applying the rule correctly. Twitter and FB are preventing, say Trump, from posting at all, even to those who want to receive his messages, so they aren't just blocking his messages to recipients who don't want to receive them. That goes beyond simply "blocking unwanted messages".