3 ms·

While some would argue that private companies have the right to censor users without exception - when private companies form a near-monopoly on artistic express

While some would argue that private companies have the right to censor users without exception - when private companies form a near-monopoly on artistic expression online, they should ethically inherit the government's ethical responsibility to protect freedom of expression. In this case this isn't only a violation of the users' freedom of expression - it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics.

charcircuit 4y ago
If they didn't work together people would instead complain about there being more extremist content. None of these companies want the bad PR from "news" articles saying that they aren't stopping extremist content from their platform. >it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics. It doesn't look anticompetitive to me considering you can ask to join the group.
ryandrake 4y ago
What companies have a "near-monopoly on artistic expression online?" I can have a web site up and running in an hour publishing any art I have the right to publish, with just an IP from my ISP and optionally a domain name. I don't need to ask any company's permission.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  That's akin to saying that booting someone from the US telephone system isn't censorship because they can always setup their own phone line from their living room to a phone installed on their front lawn - that anyone can come and talk to them on. The reality of the world is that social media is a completely separate medium from social media. A monopoly on social media is not relevant to the ability to create your own URL.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Except there is no feasible alternative to the phone system for making phone calls (although there are a multitude of video, voice and text chat apps), whereas there are many social media companies and also many blog hosts and VPS services and web server software and so on. You have so many choices. I'd argue that if you want to publish something on the Internet, there has been no better time to do it than today, and it keeps getting better!

charcircuit 4y ago

If they didn't work together people would instead complain about there being more extremist content. None of these companies want the bad PR from "news" articles saying that they aren't stopping extremist content from their platform. >it is also a clear anti-trust violation as they are abusing their monopoly position for illegal anti-competitive tactics. It doesn't look anticompetitive to me considering you can ask to join the group.

ryandrake 4y ago

What companies have a "near-monopoly on artistic expression online?" I can have a web site up and running in an hour publishing any art I have the right to publish, with just an IP from my ISP and optionally a domain name. I don't need to ask any company's permission.

koheripbal 4y ago
That's akin to saying that booting someone from the US telephone system isn't censorship because they can always setup their own phone line from their living room to a phone installed on their front lawn - that anyone can come and talk to them on. The reality of the world is that social media is a completely separate medium from social media. A monopoly on social media is not relevant to the ability to create your own URL.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Except there is no feasible alternative to the phone system for making phone calls (although there are a multitude of video, voice and text chat apps), whereas there are many social media companies and also many blog hosts and VPS services and web server software and so on. You have so many choices. I'd argue that if you want to publish something on the Internet, there has been no better time to do it than today, and it keeps getting better!