3 ms·
The corporation is either responsible for its content or it's not. If they can pick and choose whatever message they like with absolute discretion, then that's
by Levitz 3y ago
The corporation is either responsible for its content or it's not.
If they can pick and choose whatever message they like with absolute discretion, then that's effectively the corporation's speech and should be treated as such, with full responsibility over it.
If they don't want to bear the responsibility for what they publish, then it's easy, don't pretend to have the legitimacy to choose.
That the same social media platform can have as big of a change in views as Twitter/X did is insane to me. That's not "the public changing opinion". That's a corporation exercising speech. Full stop.
- chonkerz 3y agoIt's a consequence of freedom. If companies aren't allowed to make the decision, then you're saying the government should make the decision instead. It's one or the other. There is no functional world where no one is allowed to moderate abuse, because in that world the Internet ceases to function. You don't have to like the results, but someone has to do it.
- nvm0n2 3y agoLuckily both law and politics can distinguish between conventional internet abuse like spam or hacking, and ordinary political speech.
- chonkerz 3y agoA fair amount of that is orchestrated on Kiwifarms, where hackers share leaked personal information of their victims and dissect it in creepy detail
- dmatech 3y agoThis is actually completely legal in the USA. It might be illegal if you are doing it with the stated intention of facilitating targeted harassment, but just posting personal information isn't a crime. If it were, the media would be in a lot of trouble.