4 ms·
the free speech rights of giant companies VERSUS the free speech rights of the users of the products of them giant corporations the plot twist is how the figur
by ysofunny 3y ago
the free speech rights of giant companies VERSUS the free speech rights of the users of the products of them giant corporations
the plot twist is how the figurative judge presiding over this contest is the literal will to the power of dictating how people ought to think
- shadowgovt 3y agoFreedom of speech and freedom of the press are both protected by the First Amendment but are separable rights. It doesn't infringe one's free speech rights if a paper (or media service) refrains from transiting one's opinion to their readers. Start one's own press.
- ysofunny 3y agoi'm pointing at how this is an issue between corporations exerting their rights and individual users exerting theirs but you divert the focus towards the technicalities of specific rights further, this is not about "press", social media is different enough from "the press" that it should be treated accordingly
- shadowgovt 3y agoIt's not "technicalities;" these rights only exist in a legal sense because of the Constitutional protections. Remove those protections and the rule doesn't become "Everyone gets to say whatever on Twitter;" they become "Twitter can tell everyone to pound sand, can lie, can commit fraud, can pretend to be other people and edit your messages in transit," etc. Without the law, it's might-makes-right and the corporations definitely control the wires and the databases. I argue that forcing the corporations to transit bits of various users infringes upon their rights more than the law traditionally demands (and morality requires, since the existence of a corporation doesn't immediately infringe anyone else's right to start their own website). > social media is different enough from "the press" that it should be treated accordingly How so?
- ysofunny 3y ago> How so? network effects