3 ms·

Again, this has always been the case in the US. Newspapers were owned by wealthy businesses with a message to spread, as were the radio stations, then it was th

Again, this has always been the case in the US. Newspapers were owned by wealthy businesses with a message to spread, as were the radio stations, then it was the big 3 TV networks for a long time, now it’s the 5 big tech companies. The gatekeeping is a feature, not a bug. If you look to other societies, this happens there too. There is a symbiotic relationship between mass media and government at a fundamental level. There’s a reason that the first things you do after a coup are to lock down the Internet and sieze the TV / radio broadcast infrastructure.

mohanmcgeek 5y ago
Except in these cases, it's not the government asking these companies to take down the "misinformation" videos. In fact, some of these companies try to add "misleading" label to actual, official government announcements.. Trying to run a parallel, unelected government.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  Which, again, has always been the case. It’s a very new phenomenon where an individual can deliver speech directly to thousands of people. The media were the gatekeepers of information and influencers of mass opinion, and they would frequently run stories with counterfactual information that suited their purposes. Companies have always tried to run parallel, unelected governments. Whether it’s “company towns,” banana republics, or social media restrictions doesn’t matter. No, I think the root of the problem is that the ability to disseminate information widely across a population is not a good thing. I do think there should be real regulation on mass speech that is proportional to the audience size. If you have 100k followers on Instagram, that should come with some responsibilities.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    > has always been the case I don't know what your point is. Even if this is true, (which it definitely isn't), should they continue to hold unlimited powers? Blood has been shed over centuries to limit the powers of the government and to get the rights we have. I am not sure where you get the idea that free speech means speech without consequences. If I have a million followers and a sell something dubious, people would sue me for befrauding them

mohanmcgeek 5y ago

Except in these cases, it's not the government asking these companies to take down the "misinformation" videos. In fact, some of these companies try to add "misleading" label to actual, official government announcements.. Trying to run a parallel, unelected government.

wayoutthere 5y ago
Which, again, has always been the case. It’s a very new phenomenon where an individual can deliver speech directly to thousands of people. The media were the gatekeepers of information and influencers of mass opinion, and they would frequently run stories with counterfactual information that suited their purposes. Companies have always tried to run parallel, unelected governments. Whether it’s “company towns,” banana republics, or social media restrictions doesn’t matter. No, I think the root of the problem is that the ability to disseminate information widely across a population is not a good thing. I do think there should be real regulation on mass speech that is proportional to the audience size. If you have 100k followers on Instagram, that should come with some responsibilities.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  > has always been the case I don't know what your point is. Even if this is true, (which it definitely isn't), should they continue to hold unlimited powers? Blood has been shed over centuries to limit the powers of the government and to get the rights we have. I am not sure where you get the idea that free speech means speech without consequences. If I have a million followers and a sell something dubious, people would sue me for befrauding them