3 ms·

Would one solution to the free speech problem in social media is if we had state sponsored social media? The Government wouldn’t have a financial incentive to

Would one solution to the free speech problem in social media is if we had state sponsored social media? The Government wouldn’t have a financial incentive to go after advertisers, and 1st amendment would actually apply.

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
What is the "free speech problem" in social media, exactly?
- techostritch 2y ago
  Some people want a platform that is resistant to the ideological whims of its owner.
  - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
    Don't we have that? Mastodon etc? But most people aren't on mastodon, because most people don't care about a platform "resistant to the ideological whims of the owner". Most people just wanna be able to complain about it.
beardyw 2y ago
The article is in a British publication, so no, in this context the 1st amendment wouldn't apply.
Zigurd 2y ago
This is the kind of argument that leads to "Let's put Jordan Peterson in charge of the equitable distribution of female partners." Unfortunately, that not even a fanciful comparison. Some things have an objective ick. Whether it's women not wanting to touch icky men or advertisers not wanting to have their ads next to their abstruse rants entailing sexism, racism, or fascism. The question is do you value your ick more than you value being prosperous or laid? A smart lawyer once said "You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you."
- techostritch 2y ago
  I mean, I’m not personally in the market for a free speech social network, the more moderation the better, but for those who want an anything goes social network not subject to the ideological whims of the owner, with strict first amendment protections, would this work? (I am personally sus that there are a lot of people who would actually use such a thing, but people seem to talk about it a lot)
  - Zigurd 2y ago
    At the risk of being redundant to the other guy who asked you what's the problem, there are plenty of sites that will post whatever horrifying theory you want published. But you say those sites have no reach. They have no reach because they're full of trolls. That's what would happen to any network no matter who owns it that attracts that kind of audience.

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago

What is the "free speech problem" in social media, exactly?

techostritch 2y ago
Some people want a platform that is resistant to the ideological whims of its owner.
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  Don't we have that? Mastodon etc? But most people aren't on mastodon, because most people don't care about a platform "resistant to the ideological whims of the owner". Most people just wanna be able to complain about it.

beardyw 2y ago

The article is in a British publication, so no, in this context the 1st amendment wouldn't apply.

Zigurd 2y ago

This is the kind of argument that leads to "Let's put Jordan Peterson in charge of the equitable distribution of female partners." Unfortunately, that not even a fanciful comparison. Some things have an objective ick. Whether it's women not wanting to touch icky men or advertisers not wanting to have their ads next to their abstruse rants entailing sexism, racism, or fascism. The question is do you value your ick more than you value being prosperous or laid? A smart lawyer once said "You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you."

techostritch 2y ago
I mean, I’m not personally in the market for a free speech social network, the more moderation the better, but for those who want an anything goes social network not subject to the ideological whims of the owner, with strict first amendment protections, would this work? (I am personally sus that there are a lot of people who would actually use such a thing, but people seem to talk about it a lot)
- Zigurd 2y ago
  At the risk of being redundant to the other guy who asked you what's the problem, there are plenty of sites that will post whatever horrifying theory you want published. But you say those sites have no reach. They have no reach because they're full of trolls. That's what would happen to any network no matter who owns it that attracts that kind of audience.