4 ms·
Sure, but scale that lack of rights to platforms will millions or billions of users, and you get effective dictatorship. Platforms just wielding too much power
by rapnie 5y ago
Sure, but scale that lack of rights to platforms will millions or billions of users, and you get effective dictatorship. Platforms just wielding too much power that extends well beyond their walled garden, impacting society as a whole. The question is often raised if e.g. FB should be considered a utility service, and have their policies tightly regulated.
Edit: I submitted a separate Ask HN on "shadow suppression": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28344492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28344492
- shadowgovt 5y agoIt's an odd dictatorship that someone voluntarily submits to. Being out of Facebook's decisions on what you may say is as simple as closing your account.
- tekknik 5y agoPeople’s desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights. Pay attention to history and this is pretty apparent.
- shadowgovt 5y agoIt's a bit of a catch-22 though, isn't it? If people can make sound independent judgment, we don't need a law constraining what private companies must allow on their services because private users will find the censorship reprehensible and will voluntarily leave. We need the First Amendment to constrain what government can do because people cannot voluntarily leave a government; the same is not true for their Facebook account. And if people cannot make sound independent judgment, and their desire to fit in will make them give up all sorts of rights... How can we trust them with the freedom to say and hear unfiltered information? The first demagogue who comes along and convinces them they must do what he says or they don't fit in will have the whole user base in their power, right? In such a context, it is perhaps necessary to allow the media its freedom of the press to transmit what is true and refrain from transmitting what is false.
- michaelmrose 5y agoWell said.
- tekknik 5y ago> How can we trust them with the freedom to say and hear unfiltered information? Why does this always come up? Like this exact example. Where there no others? Do you know how I read this? “I think I’m smarter than everyone, and everyone should look to me for the truth”. > In such a context, it is perhaps necessary to allow the media its freedom of the press to transmit what is true and refrain from transmitting what is false. This is mostly what we have now. Go compare the divide between the parties vs the Grand Canyon. This is the result. Why? Because opinions. And what does the left do when they can’t disprove an opinion ? Cancel/censor. We also need the first amendment to apply to corporations. The left found the loophole and is giddily exercising it.
- shadowgovt 5y agoI'm not sure what you mean by "the left found the loophole," can you clarify?
- tekknik 5y agoThe gov cannot directly limit speech except in certain, very limited, cases. Instead they get corporations to do it for them. Which is currently very legal.