3 ms·
Honest answer (IANAL): it doesn’t have legal obligation to support all kinds of free speech. But in my opinion that’s because the governments fail to recognize
by M4v3R 4y ago
Honest answer (IANAL): it doesn’t have legal obligation to support all kinds of free speech. But in my opinion that’s because the governments fail to recognize these huge, influential social platforms for what they really are - utilities. They become pervasive and essential in lives of most people in the developed countries. And as such there should exist some checks and balances to make sure these platforms are not used to skew the opinion of the general public one way or another. Powerful people on both sides of political spectrum should not have direct lines to moderation teams “suggesting” what should be removed or suppressed, nor the moderators should act on their own accord when the speech in question isn’t explicitly violating any laws or site policies.
I know this might sound pretty idealistic but for anyone who thinks otherwise please entertain the possibility that such control could one day turn against you, your political candidate or your personal beliefs and suddenly it will be you who finds themselves in the crosshairs of censorship when there’s a story you believe should be brought up. It’s an ugly timeline that I don’t want to live in.
- trentgreene 4y agoYeah so this is an interesting point, the non-utility thst may secretly be a utility. See also net neutrality and censorship claims there. You could make a similar argument for news, another non-utility. They seem to have a model where outlets have a distinct pov that guides a variety of informal and formal censorship. Right wing doesn’t write stuff that looks bad for them, left wing too, local news follow local interests, etc.
- abliefern 4y agoEven if it's a "utility" (whatever that really means in this case) the First Amendment still has nothing to do with it.
- lazyeye 4y agoYes the town square has been both monopolised and privatised. And there's now been this complete role reversal where Democrats (the "great defenders of democracy") are arguing that private media companies can do whatever they like. And conservatives are arguing that there needs to be a govt intervention with these companies.