3 ms·
Enforcing "fair treatment" (meaning forcing companies to publish anything that's sent to them) is flagrantly unconstitutional and not even consistent with the F
by smt88 5y ago
Enforcing "fair treatment" (meaning forcing companies to publish anything that's sent to them) is flagrantly unconstitutional and not even consistent with the First Amendment.
Free speech is the US is freedom from censorship by the govt only, and it isn't unlimited. It only applies to ideological speech.
No consumer wants an unrestricted platform anyway. There are no platforms with zero moderation.
- dvdkon 5y agoPeople probably don't want an unmoderated community, but a community is usually smaller than a social media behemoth/"platform". Twitter is actually the one site that doesn't try to divide its userbase into groups/communities, but pretty much all other platforms I know either have a very prominent "friend" or "group" mechanism. Even on Twitter there are many subcultures, not just homogenous "Twitter users", they're just not organised as such. One-size-fits-all moderation of whole platforms is the problem, in my opinion. Imagine if all PhpBB forums were moderated by a central team and you might see why some are against Facebook/Reddit/Twitter regulating their corner of the platform.
- smt88 5y agoI agree that private communities are better. You see only who you choose to see. But I disagree that Twitter is an outlier in that regard. Facebook, YouTube, and reddit (mostly) are spaces that technically have groups, but you're still flooded with algorithmically-chosen content made by strangers.