The problem I have here is that “conservatives” want to ensure free speech on SOMEONE ELSE’S PLATFORM. Make your own or get off social media.
Congress shall make no law...
Liberals: You don’t have the right to question our leaders on social media. If you don’t like it, start your own platform
Conservatives: (Starts a new platform)
Liberals: (hounds the provider until it shuts down the platform)
Interesting....
The article is about attempts by leftists to control speech and social media content but you ignore that and want to turn it into a discussion about bad ol’ conservatives wanting to allow free speech on what are arguably Tech Monopolies that almost exist as public communication utilities.
Do you not have a problem with what radical Rep Schakowsky is doing? (And note the silencing of Conservatives by the left who deny them a voice when they do exactly what you say they should do. (Parler...))
Sorry but this argument of “they’re a private company” completely misses the point. They’re a global funnel of mass communication for people everywhere and competition is near zero because you must attain critical mass to be relevant, otherwise nobody joins.
What we now have is a layer of society, one that is above our government, dictating what speech is allowed. It is the new fascism that doesn’t answer to our Constitution. You may be fine with that, I’m not. We’ve evolved beyond worrying about the tyranny of just our government. The world hasn’t seen anything like this before and it isn’t limited to free speech. How about your bank accounts being shut down? Want to start a small business but can’t compete with Amazon? ...then join them - but if they don’t like your opinions they’ll shut you down. Great - now our economy runs through Amazon.
This is all way too dangerous, it is tyranny of the big tech and it must be broken up.
I agree, much to the dismay of some on the right. I guess we’re even farther right.
Freedom of the press does not include the freedom to use someone else’s press without their consent.
Yes, big social media are central to society as privately owned town squares - only because enough people choose to go there. Popularity does not impact rights.
That said, under current regulations Facebook/Twitter/etc are acting as publishers by not following “common carrier” principles, instead aggressively editing allied narratives - thus making themselves liable for other punishable content.
I’ve seen many juggernaut social platforms come and go. If you don’t like the current ones, don’t use them - when enough don’t, they’ll die off.
bake the damn cake
The problem with this point of view is that it if ignores the huge advantages that the existing players have. They are essentially monopolies! That means they should be treated as such! Why not classify facebook and twitter as common carriers under the law? That would remove their power to stifle any narrative.
No. False thinking. When it's a billion users big, it is no longer the sole property of anyone, it is a defacto public resource.
Anything that is used by millions of people to communicate with other members of the public is a public resource, and must be regarded as a public resource, regardless of how it was began and who created it.