3 ms·

It's pretty hard to be pro-"safety" on things like social media, news, AI, etc., and then turn around and say with a straight face that infrastructure shouldn't

• judge2020 4y ago
  How so? That's like saying you shouldn't be able to drive if you like country music (no offense to country music). Infrastructure enables the freedom of association on the internet just as driving enables your freedom of association based on your physical location, so the people that make that infrastructure probably shouldn't be able to say which websites you can and can't visit.
• smt88 4y ago
  > It's pretty hard to be pro-"safety" on things like social media, news, AI, etc., and then turn around and say with a straight face that infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to be moderated. It's only hard if you're willfully ignoring the distinction people are making, which is that ISPs are "dumb pipes" operating in a government-sanctioned oligopoly. Just like broadcast networks, the privilege of using a limited public resource (underground cabling, bandwidth, whatever) comes with regulations. Social media, on the other hand, isn't borrowing a finite resource from taxpayers. It's a fungible resource and can exist in a competitive environment, which we've seen with the rise of TikTok and everyone else's blatant copying of TikTok. And most importantly, no one is forcing them to censor themselves. They're bowing to protests and market forces. Libertarians are always whining about how there isn't enough competition, and then they whine when the invisible hand makes a decision they don't like.