3 ms·
Social media can and does have both. The whole point of Section 230 immunity is to basically neutralize the platform's responsibility so in that case they shou
by _yoqn 5y ago
Social media can and does have both.
The whole point of Section 230 immunity is to basically neutralize the platform's responsibility so in that case they shouldn't care who says what and let the opposing sides battle each other on the merits of what's being said.
So why do they maintain huge and cumbersome speech codes and rules of what can be said on their platforms?
It's simple. Threat of regulation. The tech monopolists are like the old time robber barons of the early 20th century with their mega corps (railroads, oil, tobacco, etc). They are trying to hang on to their behemoths' power and appease political forces at the same time.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoWell, also threat of losing advertisers, which is their major source of income.
- Zuider 5y agoIn many cases, advertisers have been pressured by activists on pain of having their brand actively smeared by those activists. This leaves the question open as to how much advertisers would be motivated to withdraw their custom, absent such campaigns, or the chilling effect of the possibility of such activism.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoWell sure, but that’s part of the free market, and has nothing to do with pressure from the government. The government pressure story is just not convincing to me.
- Zuider 5y agoI am not sure that political activists employing threats to achieve a political goal should be considered part of the free market.