Public places that are privately owned have been determined to be subject to the requirements of government to protect First Amendment rights. Such places have usually been malls or areas open to the public. Social media easily meets the test of being a “functional equivalent “ of a public forum that must respect freedom of speech. The argument that ownership is private doesn’t necessarily permit selective censorship.
I don’t buy his argument that a different media form would change the interaction between people to a more positive one.
People are people and when they are behind the curtain of anonymity that social media provides, they will still lash out at each other in negative ways.
I’ve been involved with YouTube since 2006. My focus has been on spiritual issues. In 2008, there was an unsuccessful drive by an individual to rid YouTube of video content they did not approve. By myself and other video creators, that individual was run off the platform. I have noticed a similar trend in politics occuring for some time. But since 2008, YouTube was acquired by Google, and has undergone many changes, some taken with a pound of salt. Yet, as I examined Twitter and Facebook, and other sites, the ones that had attempted to ruin YouTube, are over there, now. So, I will remain a Tuber.
Social media tech and companies have been creations of our CIA.
Wouldn’t it easier for these social media companies to decouple the political banter into a separate app?
IMHO, social media in general is a waste of time. Never met anybody who would admit their mind was changed on an important topic of the day by reading social media.
As far as I’m concerned, Facebook, Twitter, et al could dry up and blow away and we’d be better off for it.