4 ms·

> They should have an obligation not to censor, because between them they can virtually block all practically available channels of communication Absolute bull

by Hasu 2y ago

> They should have an obligation not to censor, because between them they can virtually block all practically available channels of communication Absolute bullshit. It has never been easier in history to publish your own thoughts for the consumption of anyone who is interested in reading them. You can make your own website and put just about whatever you want on it. You can write and publish pamphlets or books with print on demand services. You can record audio or video with your phone and put it on your website or just send it directly to people. You can walk down to the town square and say pretty much whatever you want. You absolutely don't need to be on Facebook or Twitter or ANY social networks to exercise your free speech. None of these companies has power over any means of communication other than their own platforms. You don't have to use their platforms.

graemep 2y ago
> You don't have to use their platforms. Yes, but you can reach far fewer people if you do not. This is well on the way to arguing that you are free to say what you want in a sealed room.
- Hasu 2y ago
  You don't have the right for anyone to care about what you say, and never have. Your argument seems to be that the New York Times has no choice but to publish my op-ed, because otherwise how will anyone find it?
  - graemep 2y ago
    No, its more like arguing that telecoms companies (especially ones with monopolies) should not be able to refuse service on grounds that they do not like views people express in their phone calls. The NYT is a publication, social media are platforms.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  And? If you are on a platform and depending on random people finding your message, how are you going to get above the noise? You have to put in the work. Major changes happen by people getting thier voice out before social media
  - graemep 2y ago
    > Major changes happen by people getting thier voice out before social media But they did not have to compete with social media. There are more third spaces (as is often discussed on HN) and local ways to get started.

by Hasu 2y ago

graemep 2y ago

> You don't have to use their platforms. Yes, but you can reach far fewer people if you do not. This is well on the way to arguing that you are free to say what you want in a sealed room.

Hasu 2y ago
You don't have the right for anyone to care about what you say, and never have. Your argument seems to be that the New York Times has no choice but to publish my op-ed, because otherwise how will anyone find it?
- graemep 2y ago
  No, its more like arguing that telecoms companies (especially ones with monopolies) should not be able to refuse service on grounds that they do not like views people express in their phone calls. The NYT is a publication, social media are platforms.
scarface_74 2y ago
And? If you are on a platform and depending on random people finding your message, how are you going to get above the noise? You have to put in the work. Major changes happen by people getting thier voice out before social media
- graemep 2y ago
  > Major changes happen by people getting thier voice out before social media But they did not have to compete with social media. There are more third spaces (as is often discussed on HN) and local ways to get started.