38 ms·

People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate conten

People seem to confuse freedom of speech with antitrust issues when it comes to social media curating content. They’re private companies, they can curate content as they see fit. If someone doesn’t like it, use a different platform. If one platform is too dominant then it’s an antitrust issue.

version_five 4y ago
Yes, I think that's the most sensible framework for looking at this. The challenge is that antitrust laws may need to be updated or reinterpreted for platform companies. And there doesn't seem to be too much political will for that. All sides mainly seem to support laws and private action that align with censoring views they disagree with and forcing hosting of views they support. Well only make progress when people (a) agree there will be views they don't like or agree with on the internet and (b) as you say, outside of a monopoly power situation, private companies can choose what they decide to publish or not publish.
fragmede 4y ago
Just because it's a private company doesn't mean zero rules apply to it. You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed.
- olliej 4y ago
  You can as a restaurant require a certain level of clothing. That can be used for overtly discriminatory purposes, but is allowed. (Some social media) can say “here are the rules you need to conform to: don’t threaten people, don’t propagate racist abuse, etc” they can’t say “we don’t accept black people”, but if they have rules that apply to everyone, then it’s their own right. Musk wants trump on Twitter because musk recognizes that buying favour is super easy with trump.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    I think he just recognizes that Trump is a money-printing machine for Twitter.
- triceratops 4y ago
  > You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed But you can ban people who start restaurants and say "no blacks allowed". Do you see the difference the two groups? One is what people are. The other is what they say or do. Discrimination based on the the first is illegal. Discrimination based on the second is not.
  - tomohawk 4y ago
    You are assuming the answer. We are currently having an argument as to whether such discrimination should be allowed. Given we have a right to free speech, and that this is not allowed to be infringed on by any US government, does that not also extend to the government actively protecting that right from those who would seek to infringe on it? There is quite a body of law that says that the government should do just that.
    - bandyaboot 4y ago
      That’s a really roundabout way of saying “The government isn’t allowed to infringe on speech (generally speaking), therefore the government should be compelled to intervene when a private entity infinges on the principles of free speech on its private property”. It’s a non sequitur, and even as non sequiturs go, this is a particularly unserious one.
      - tomohawk 4y ago
        The federal government can, and will intervene when state or local governments infringe on peoples rights. It happens all the time. So the federal government is already doing way more than just not infringing. It's also protecting. Twitter, Facebook, and other monopolies have more power than state or local governments to infringe, so obviously the federal government should intervene to protect people's rights.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Twitter, Facebook, et al. have the power to arrest you and seize your home?
- krapp 4y ago
  And yet as a restaurant owner you have the right to determine what is and isn't on your menu, and to eject unruly customers and (barring legally protected classes) can legally refuse service to anyone.
barbacoa 4y ago
This argument has become so tiresome. Speech laws become very blurry when it comes to corporations. I'd get in trouble with regulators if I went around saying the herbal supplements I sell cures cancer. Government forces companies to published compelled speech when it comes to food labeling or alcohol/cigarette warnings. Where does the line exist? I don't know and I'd love to see a court rule on this.
- version_five 4y ago
  No, people like to pretend speech lines get "blurry" so they can push their own agendas. Breaking the law is already illegal. This, and the current debate generally, is about trying to have the government intervene online when people say legal things someone doesn't like, or don't want to host things they don't like.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Those are specific issues around as advertising. They do not generalize to social media companies.
tomohawk 4y ago
We should not expect private individuals or corps to be able to infringe on people's rights. If a monopoly infringes on any of my rights, I expect the government to do something about it. Heck, even a non-monopoly company. Such companies should be split up, regulated, whatever, and the officers should be subject to penalties. A monopoly should not be thought of in the same way as some random company.
- krapp 4y ago
  Being moderated by a social media website is not an infringement of your rights, and social media platforms are not monopolies.

version_five 4y ago

Yes, I think that's the most sensible framework for looking at this. The challenge is that antitrust laws may need to be updated or reinterpreted for platform companies. And there doesn't seem to be too much political will for that. All sides mainly seem to support laws and private action that align with censoring views they disagree with and forcing hosting of views they support. Well only make progress when people (a) agree there will be views they don't like or agree with on the internet and (b) as you say, outside of a monopoly power situation, private companies can choose what they decide to publish or not publish.

fragmede 4y ago

Just because it's a private company doesn't mean zero rules apply to it. You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed.

olliej 4y ago
You can as a restaurant require a certain level of clothing. That can be used for overtly discriminatory purposes, but is allowed. (Some social media) can say “here are the rules you need to conform to: don’t threaten people, don’t propagate racist abuse, etc” they can’t say “we don’t accept black people”, but if they have rules that apply to everyone, then it’s their own right. Musk wants trump on Twitter because musk recognizes that buying favour is super easy with trump.
- jfengel 4y ago
  I think he just recognizes that Trump is a money-printing machine for Twitter.
triceratops 4y ago
> You can't just start a restaurant (a private company) and say no blacks allowed But you can ban people who start restaurants and say "no blacks allowed". Do you see the difference the two groups? One is what people are. The other is what they say or do. Discrimination based on the the first is illegal. Discrimination based on the second is not.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  You are assuming the answer. We are currently having an argument as to whether such discrimination should be allowed. Given we have a right to free speech, and that this is not allowed to be infringed on by any US government, does that not also extend to the government actively protecting that right from those who would seek to infringe on it? There is quite a body of law that says that the government should do just that.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    That’s a really roundabout way of saying “The government isn’t allowed to infringe on speech (generally speaking), therefore the government should be compelled to intervene when a private entity infinges on the principles of free speech on its private property”. It’s a non sequitur, and even as non sequiturs go, this is a particularly unserious one.
    - tomohawk 4y ago
      The federal government can, and will intervene when state or local governments infringe on peoples rights. It happens all the time. So the federal government is already doing way more than just not infringing. It's also protecting. Twitter, Facebook, and other monopolies have more power than state or local governments to infringe, so obviously the federal government should intervene to protect people's rights.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Twitter, Facebook, et al. have the power to arrest you and seize your home?
krapp 4y ago
And yet as a restaurant owner you have the right to determine what is and isn't on your menu, and to eject unruly customers and (barring legally protected classes) can legally refuse service to anyone.

barbacoa 4y ago

This argument has become so tiresome. Speech laws become very blurry when it comes to corporations. I'd get in trouble with regulators if I went around saying the herbal supplements I sell cures cancer. Government forces companies to published compelled speech when it comes to food labeling or alcohol/cigarette warnings. Where does the line exist? I don't know and I'd love to see a court rule on this.

version_five 4y ago
No, people like to pretend speech lines get "blurry" so they can push their own agendas. Breaking the law is already illegal. This, and the current debate generally, is about trying to have the government intervene online when people say legal things someone doesn't like, or don't want to host things they don't like.
Manuel_D 4y ago
Those are specific issues around as advertising. They do not generalize to social media companies.

tomohawk 4y ago

We should not expect private individuals or corps to be able to infringe on people's rights. If a monopoly infringes on any of my rights, I expect the government to do something about it. Heck, even a non-monopoly company. Such companies should be split up, regulated, whatever, and the officers should be subject to penalties. A monopoly should not be thought of in the same way as some random company.

krapp 4y ago
Being moderated by a social media website is not an infringement of your rights, and social media platforms are not monopolies.