4 ms·

Okay. So it wasn’t a mistake. Google like any other media company decided to exercise editorial control and let part A speak while muzzling party B. Now what?

Okay. So it wasn’t a mistake. Google like any other media company decided to exercise editorial control and let part A speak while muzzling party B. Now what? There is no consensus of what to do with political speech and media. In some counties only the ruling government gets access. In some counties, only the leading parties have access and all must share time equally. In others, you only get the access that you can buy. In still others, no one gets access except under regulated conditions like a debate. If Google takes a step back from the label of Big Tech and admits that YouTube is just another multinational media company… then what do they lose?

ralfn 5y ago
>There is no consensus of what to do with political speech and media. There is though. The general consensus of free societies is that the democratically elected government regulates speech and not the market. The problem is youtube/facbeook/instagram/linked-in perform functions that one would normally classify as 'public space'. Obviously that might need some level of policing, because some speech is criminal (like a threat of violence made to another person). But private companies shouldn't be forced to police. I blame the lack of regulations much more than the for profit companies trying to make a profit (they are legally bound to pursuit profit by their stock holders). The trouble is the US is allergic to do such a thing, and when another country starts regulation the companies of one of their biggest trade ally's... So, please, uncle Sam. Can you please make sure the ToS of facebook and the like, is written by your congress. So that there is direct democratic influence on it? Even Facebook will like a lot better that way, because it actually allows them to stop pretending to be 'the facebook state' and can just go back to 'facebook, the for profit company'.

ralfn 5y ago

>There is no consensus of what to do with political speech and media. There is though. The general consensus of free societies is that the democratically elected government regulates speech and not the market. The problem is youtube/facbeook/instagram/linked-in perform functions that one would normally classify as 'public space'. Obviously that might need some level of policing, because some speech is criminal (like a threat of violence made to another person). But private companies shouldn't be forced to police. I blame the lack of regulations much more than the for profit companies trying to make a profit (they are legally bound to pursuit profit by their stock holders). The trouble is the US is allergic to do such a thing, and when another country starts regulation the companies of one of their biggest trade ally's... So, please, uncle Sam. Can you please make sure the ToS of facebook and the like, is written by your congress. So that there is direct democratic influence on it? Even Facebook will like a lot better that way, because it actually allows them to stop pretending to be 'the facebook state' and can just go back to 'facebook, the for profit company'.