5 ms·

Social media companies have too much power. As Justice Clarence Thomas articulated, big social media platforms should be treated as common carriers (https://www

Social media companies have too much power. As Justice Clarence Thomas articulated, big social media platforms should be treated as common carriers (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-right-about-big-tech/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/clarence-thomas-is-ri...). They’re not very different from your phone company or other utility. They are the new public square where civil liberties like free speech are most frequently exercised. Viewpoint discrimination on these platforms is bad for a liberal society, and plainly oppressive. Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. There are many ways in which they can be legally compelled to carry speech, as a UCLA Professor recently analyzed (https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and-treating-social-media-platforms-as-common-carriers/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and...).

filoeleven 5y ago
> They’re not very different from your phone company or other utility. Oh, but they are! My phone company makes no attempt to influence the content of my voice or text conversations, nor how I use my data plan. Facebook/Twitter do their very best to tailor what I see to keep me scrolling and “engaged.” If this is the new public square, the crack dealers are already selling, and in fact are the ones who built the square. I think I like the idea of social media as common carrier. It would require vast changes in how their apps are designed though. > Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. This seems like a bad idea, unless you want to elevate the status of political affiliation to that of religion, and expect violations of that protection to be enforced just as unevenly.
klyrs 5y ago
> Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. What's special about a political viewpoint? How do you even define "political viewpoint"? Is it different from a "religious viewpoint"? Is it different from a run-of-the-mill opinion?
- ttyprintk 5y ago
  If a leading politician is mostly shilling merchandise and asking for donations-to-nowhere, then what is the difference between political speech and spam?

filoeleven 5y ago

> They’re not very different from your phone company or other utility. Oh, but they are! My phone company makes no attempt to influence the content of my voice or text conversations, nor how I use my data plan. Facebook/Twitter do their very best to tailor what I see to keep me scrolling and “engaged.” If this is the new public square, the crack dealers are already selling, and in fact are the ones who built the square. I think I like the idea of social media as common carrier. It would require vast changes in how their apps are designed though. > Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. This seems like a bad idea, unless you want to elevate the status of political affiliation to that of religion, and expect violations of that protection to be enforced just as unevenly.

klyrs 5y ago

> Political viewpoints should constitute a protected class that should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. What's special about a political viewpoint? How do you even define "political viewpoint"? Is it different from a "religious viewpoint"? Is it different from a run-of-the-mill opinion?

ttyprintk 5y ago
If a leading politician is mostly shilling merchandise and asking for donations-to-nowhere, then what is the difference between political speech and spam?