4 ms·

I don't understand this position. Why do people want private companies to decide what's allowed and what isn't? Shouldn't lawmakers, and by extension the people

I don't understand this position. Why do people want private companies to decide what's allowed and what isn't? Shouldn't lawmakers, and by extension the people (at least in democratic countries) decide what speech is allowed and what isn't? The number of people using social media makes it the town square of the present. We should treat it as such.

alextheparrot 2y ago
Quippy, but off the cuff: - I don’t go to my present town square(s) socially because it is full of a-social behavior. Same reason to avoid certain bars or clubs, prefer certain parks, or why some are wary of public transit. - I don’t feel a right to decide the vibe of how a business curates its space. My bakery, coffee shop, local library, etc. all curate a space with an opinion. I don’t feel I have standing to assert that my preferences should dominate their choices. As an aside, businesses are also an extension of the people, the best ones tend to just not be mode collapsed
CamperBob2 2y ago
In case you haven't noticed, the people running the government now shouldn't be trusted to run a McDonald's franchise, much less decide what speech is allowed and what isn't. Ditto for the voters who elected said government.
dale_glass 2y ago
Because it works, and is a requirement to have a functional platform at all. First, commercial speech is certainly speech. If you don't restrict anything at all, your platform will drown in a constant deluge of spam. So on that basis alone there's something you must remove if you want to have any kind of conversations happening, and therefore can't be an actual absolutist. Second, there's illegal and just icky content. Posting pictures of poo isn't illegal. It can be "speech" after a fashion. That will also quickly result in people leaving. Third, a free-for-all is only tolerable to a small segment of the population. HN for instance only works because it's moderated and curated. You can have something like r/worldpolitics which embodies the "no moderation" ideal. It's a subreddit where the moderators do the absolute minimum Reddit requires. Meaning it's mostly porn. And what's the point in having more than one of those? They're all more or less the same.
- ty6853 2y ago
  [dead]
- LocalH 2y ago
  The problem is the algorithms that surface people's posts to those not friends with or following them. That's what turns a basic and true "social media" into a hyper-competitive arena which encourages a race to the bottom, to make the cheapest content possible to grab eyeballs. "Social media" should not be a hyper-concentrated collection of advertising targets. That single aspect has probably caused 99% of "social medial ills.
maeln 2y ago
> The number of people using social media makes it the town square of the present. We should treat it as such. Then try yelling racial slurs in your local town square and see how that goes for ya. > I don't understand this position. Why do people want private companies to decide what's allowed and what isn't? Shouldn't lawmakers, and by extension the people (at least in democratic countries) decide what speech is allowed and what isn't? Why shouldn't I be allowed to police what can be said on my private property ? If you are in my home yelling racist stuff, I will ask you to leave, and make you leave if you refuse. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do the same on my plateform. If you want to yell racial slurs, you can go to truth social or whatever.
throwaway48476 2y ago
In the case where the platform is a monopoly then yes, the government should play a role. Small forums should be left alone.

alextheparrot 2y ago

Quippy, but off the cuff: - I don’t go to my present town square(s) socially because it is full of a-social behavior. Same reason to avoid certain bars or clubs, prefer certain parks, or why some are wary of public transit. - I don’t feel a right to decide the vibe of how a business curates its space. My bakery, coffee shop, local library, etc. all curate a space with an opinion. I don’t feel I have standing to assert that my preferences should dominate their choices. As an aside, businesses are also an extension of the people, the best ones tend to just not be mode collapsed

CamperBob2 2y ago

In case you haven't noticed, the people running the government now shouldn't be trusted to run a McDonald's franchise, much less decide what speech is allowed and what isn't. Ditto for the voters who elected said government.

dale_glass 2y ago

Because it works, and is a requirement to have a functional platform at all. First, commercial speech is certainly speech. If you don't restrict anything at all, your platform will drown in a constant deluge of spam. So on that basis alone there's something you must remove if you want to have any kind of conversations happening, and therefore can't be an actual absolutist. Second, there's illegal and just icky content. Posting pictures of poo isn't illegal. It can be "speech" after a fashion. That will also quickly result in people leaving. Third, a free-for-all is only tolerable to a small segment of the population. HN for instance only works because it's moderated and curated. You can have something like r/worldpolitics which embodies the "no moderation" ideal. It's a subreddit where the moderators do the absolute minimum Reddit requires. Meaning it's mostly porn. And what's the point in having more than one of those? They're all more or less the same.

ty6853 2y ago
[dead]
LocalH 2y ago
The problem is the algorithms that surface people's posts to those not friends with or following them. That's what turns a basic and true "social media" into a hyper-competitive arena which encourages a race to the bottom, to make the cheapest content possible to grab eyeballs. "Social media" should not be a hyper-concentrated collection of advertising targets. That single aspect has probably caused 99% of "social medial ills.

maeln 2y ago

> The number of people using social media makes it the town square of the present. We should treat it as such. Then try yelling racial slurs in your local town square and see how that goes for ya. > I don't understand this position. Why do people want private companies to decide what's allowed and what isn't? Shouldn't lawmakers, and by extension the people (at least in democratic countries) decide what speech is allowed and what isn't? Why shouldn't I be allowed to police what can be said on my private property ? If you are in my home yelling racist stuff, I will ask you to leave, and make you leave if you refuse. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do the same on my plateform. If you want to yell racial slurs, you can go to truth social or whatever.

throwaway48476 2y ago

In the case where the platform is a monopoly then yes, the government should play a role. Small forums should be left alone.