3 ms·

I would absolutely draw a distinction between government enforced censorship and private platforms censoring content. Where it becomes a larger problem is if t

I would absolutely draw a distinction between government enforced censorship and private platforms censoring content. Where it becomes a larger problem is if the private platform is an effective monopoly; using monopoly power to censor viewpoints would be a bad. Normally we would call a monopoly platform a common carrier and outlaw censorship by them.

CM30 4mo ago
The issue is that there are plenty of large companies that are effectively censoring legal views, and making it harder for people to setup alternative platforms that support them. For example, Visa and Mastercard control much of the payment infrastructure used online, and have far stricter rules about the type of content they allow payments for than what many countries actually allow. Same with Paypal to some extent, or Cloudflare, or cloud hosting platforms like AWS.
- atmavatar 4mo ago
  The problem you're describing isn't so much that private companies are allowed to choose who they do business with, but rather that the US has allowed far too much consolidation of markets to occur. Regarding your example: I fully agree that Visa and Mastercard have way too much control over payment infrastructure. Before doing anything else, I'd break up their de facto duopoly. I'd focus on Visa in particular, as they control nearly 2/3 the market by themselves.
coldtea 4mo ago
>I would absolutely draw a distinction between government enforced censorship and private platforms censoring content. I would absolutely not.
- amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
  So... If I run a bbs, I can't delete spam or porn, or kick people off my platform? That's an infringement of free speech? Or say I run a newspaper, I have to print every editorial letter somebody sends in? I can't pick and choose? Do I as the platform owner lose my free speech?
  - coldtea 4mo ago
    >So... If I run a bbs, I can't delete spam or porn, or kick people off my platform? That's an infringement of free speech? Question: What if ...contrived example... Answer: you can do the contrived example. Porn is porn, spam is spam. Editorial sections have limited space (even on an online newspaper). And newspapers aren't social media platforms. A newspaper can have an editorial voice. I'm not sure why the need for contrived examples. You don't have to consider porn or spam as free speech, and that's that. Is it a uniquely US thing to think of it that way (like the pedantic "fire in a crowded theater" arguments)? If you're a platform and someone has a political theory or some social observation, however, you should treat it as a manner of free speech. If it's an erotic work, you can debate whether it's art or porn, and if art, should treet is as a matter of free speech.
    - amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
      How are these contrived examples? Every subreddit, every discord, even this very site will run into these same issues. Maybe the confusion here is around what you consider a "platform"?

CM30 4mo ago

The issue is that there are plenty of large companies that are effectively censoring legal views, and making it harder for people to setup alternative platforms that support them. For example, Visa and Mastercard control much of the payment infrastructure used online, and have far stricter rules about the type of content they allow payments for than what many countries actually allow. Same with Paypal to some extent, or Cloudflare, or cloud hosting platforms like AWS.

atmavatar 4mo ago
The problem you're describing isn't so much that private companies are allowed to choose who they do business with, but rather that the US has allowed far too much consolidation of markets to occur. Regarding your example: I fully agree that Visa and Mastercard have way too much control over payment infrastructure. Before doing anything else, I'd break up their de facto duopoly. I'd focus on Visa in particular, as they control nearly 2/3 the market by themselves.

coldtea 4mo ago

>I would absolutely draw a distinction between government enforced censorship and private platforms censoring content. I would absolutely not.

amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
So... If I run a bbs, I can't delete spam or porn, or kick people off my platform? That's an infringement of free speech? Or say I run a newspaper, I have to print every editorial letter somebody sends in? I can't pick and choose? Do I as the platform owner lose my free speech?
- coldtea 4mo ago
  >So... If I run a bbs, I can't delete spam or porn, or kick people off my platform? That's an infringement of free speech? Question: What if ...contrived example... Answer: you can do the contrived example. Porn is porn, spam is spam. Editorial sections have limited space (even on an online newspaper). And newspapers aren't social media platforms. A newspaper can have an editorial voice. I'm not sure why the need for contrived examples. You don't have to consider porn or spam as free speech, and that's that. Is it a uniquely US thing to think of it that way (like the pedantic "fire in a crowded theater" arguments)? If you're a platform and someone has a political theory or some social observation, however, you should treat it as a manner of free speech. If it's an erotic work, you can debate whether it's art or porn, and if art, should treet is as a matter of free speech.
  - amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
    How are these contrived examples? Every subreddit, every discord, even this very site will run into these same issues. Maybe the confusion here is around what you consider a "platform"?