4 ms·

> I don't know how letting social media companies dictate political discourse became acceptable. I don't either. I shake my head when I read people making the

> I don't know how letting social media companies dictate political discourse became acceptable. I don't either. I shake my head when I read people making the rebuttal that it's not the government censoring you so it's kosher. So, to get this straight, do people actually think that a profit driven corporation being more powerful than the government is a good thing? I don't get it AT ALL.

juve1996 4y ago
Do you think you have the right to go into a newspaper's office and force them to print speech that supports your point of view? That's what you're arguing for. The government regulating speech is a violation of the first amendment, period. That includes forcing speech. The problem isn't corporations having the right to moderate. The problem is corporations have become so large and powerful that meaningful competition can't exist.
- themaninthedark 4y ago
  Are the social media companies doing the printing? If I am a phone company and I detect that people are talking about anti-vax stuff, can I disconnect the call? What if it is a party line? Generally, newspapers print content they write. Not content written by Joe Q. Public, they often change the content of their writers using editors or don't run stories to push a narrative. In doing so, they are responsible for the content and stories they create. Social media companies seem to want to be telephone companies with no responsibility when it suits them but also have the power of editor when it suits them.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    Phone companies are a pipe - the content isn't broadcast publicly like it is on social networks, so that argument isn't logically consistent. Phone companies have no need to moderate content. Social media is akin to paying for a storefront advertisement, or sending a letter to the editor. You buy access to a display window and can put your content there, under conditions. This is no different than that. If that content violates the rules, it can be removed. I wouldn't get mad if a shop owner agreed to put my sign up. I also wouldn't be mad if he said no. It's his property. I can buy my own property and do my own thing. Twitter is a private corporation. If they decided tomorrow that they'll only allow posts about bitcoin and delete everything else, that is their right. The government should not be telling people, or private corporations, what they can, and can't, post on their platforms. Do you think HN moderation should be removed? Do you want more cesspools online? That's what you're arguing for.
deepsquirrelnet 4y ago
> I don't either. I shake my head when I read people making the rebuttal that it's not the government censoring you so it's kosher. The typical rebuttal that I hear is not that it’s kosher, but that it doesn’t have anything to do with the first amendment. Choices are: - government tells social media what to do (controversial) - government doesn’t tell social media what to do (controversial) People can be upset forever, but it’s a stalemate that will never get resolved in this political climate. Not coincidentally, a lot of money is made on unresolved problems.

juve1996 4y ago

Do you think you have the right to go into a newspaper's office and force them to print speech that supports your point of view? That's what you're arguing for. The government regulating speech is a violation of the first amendment, period. That includes forcing speech. The problem isn't corporations having the right to moderate. The problem is corporations have become so large and powerful that meaningful competition can't exist.

themaninthedark 4y ago
Are the social media companies doing the printing? If I am a phone company and I detect that people are talking about anti-vax stuff, can I disconnect the call? What if it is a party line? Generally, newspapers print content they write. Not content written by Joe Q. Public, they often change the content of their writers using editors or don't run stories to push a narrative. In doing so, they are responsible for the content and stories they create. Social media companies seem to want to be telephone companies with no responsibility when it suits them but also have the power of editor when it suits them.
- juve1996 4y ago
  Phone companies are a pipe - the content isn't broadcast publicly like it is on social networks, so that argument isn't logically consistent. Phone companies have no need to moderate content. Social media is akin to paying for a storefront advertisement, or sending a letter to the editor. You buy access to a display window and can put your content there, under conditions. This is no different than that. If that content violates the rules, it can be removed. I wouldn't get mad if a shop owner agreed to put my sign up. I also wouldn't be mad if he said no. It's his property. I can buy my own property and do my own thing. Twitter is a private corporation. If they decided tomorrow that they'll only allow posts about bitcoin and delete everything else, that is their right. The government should not be telling people, or private corporations, what they can, and can't, post on their platforms. Do you think HN moderation should be removed? Do you want more cesspools online? That's what you're arguing for.

deepsquirrelnet 4y ago

> I don't either. I shake my head when I read people making the rebuttal that it's not the government censoring you so it's kosher. The typical rebuttal that I hear is not that it’s kosher, but that it doesn’t have anything to do with the first amendment. Choices are: - government tells social media what to do (controversial) - government doesn’t tell social media what to do (controversial) People can be upset forever, but it’s a stalemate that will never get resolved in this political climate. Not coincidentally, a lot of money is made on unresolved problems.