4 ms·

The answer is simple: if the USSC would be against nationalizing these services, then they should also be against attempting to restrain their ability to modera

The answer is simple: if the USSC would be against nationalizing these services, then they should also be against attempting to restrain their ability to moderate their own content. Nobody with even a pair of brain cells can logically conclude that actors like Google and Facebook have ever been either benign or neutral, nor should courts pretend that an inability to understand those facts should be burdens for said networks. Just because, as Chaya Raichik complained the other day, that she should be able to say what she wants because "there's no law against lying," doesn't mean that platforms have to necessarily allow harmful bullshit either.

troyvit 3y ago
I think I'm down for this in the abstract, but that's because I'm not a powerful voice that has been censored by one of these big players, and I also am glad for most of the censorship I've seen them do. But if I step out of my shoes and look at Trump for instance, does he have a legitimate grievance for being kicked off of Twitter if he actually _did_ think that he fairly won the election and was deplatformed because he tried to speak about it? If Twitter at the time was as powerful as a government in regulating speech ... should it have to follow the same rules? If the playing field for social media was more level, it wouldn't be an issue. He can just go to another provider and have his speech. Still, re-reading what you said I have to agree that the end goal should be people understanding that Google and Facebook (and Twitter) are not benign or neutral and never will be.
- MisterBastahrd 3y ago
  Hypotheticals are not reality. Trump should have been kicked off of twitter years before he was. He was a raging asshole and a bully long before he ever made up his grievances about losing the election. There was zero reason to keep him on the platform because he could literally call a press conference any time he wanted. Twitter is NEVER as powerful as the government in regulating speech, because governments have the ability to compel people via fines, jail time, and violence.

troyvit 3y ago

I think I'm down for this in the abstract, but that's because I'm not a powerful voice that has been censored by one of these big players, and I also am glad for most of the censorship I've seen them do. But if I step out of my shoes and look at Trump for instance, does he have a legitimate grievance for being kicked off of Twitter if he actually _did_ think that he fairly won the election and was deplatformed because he tried to speak about it? If Twitter at the time was as powerful as a government in regulating speech ... should it have to follow the same rules? If the playing field for social media was more level, it wouldn't be an issue. He can just go to another provider and have his speech. Still, re-reading what you said I have to agree that the end goal should be people understanding that Google and Facebook (and Twitter) are not benign or neutral and never will be.

MisterBastahrd 3y ago
Hypotheticals are not reality. Trump should have been kicked off of twitter years before he was. He was a raging asshole and a bully long before he ever made up his grievances about losing the election. There was zero reason to keep him on the platform because he could literally call a press conference any time he wanted. Twitter is NEVER as powerful as the government in regulating speech, because governments have the ability to compel people via fines, jail time, and violence.