Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Another question I have for the “our freedoms are at stake” crowd: to what extent are private companies meant to give us a platform going forward? I understand that we’ve never faced this particular dilemma as nothing has ever been as intertwined as social media is, but what kind of platform do they owe us? One of the main differences I find between a legal right to free speech and a moral obligation to defend free speech is what is owed to us. If I wanted to address the nation in Congress, I wouldn’t find a platform. If I wanted to go on television and find a platform for my thoughts, I wouldn’t necessarily find one. Why is Facebook or Twitter so different that they must provide a platform?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
The people that wanted to disenfranchise my vote now want me to be mad that they are getting censored. It would be a shame if we just no sold your concerns and made up stupid conspiracy theories and pretended like everything in the world is perfect and anyone who disagrees is a NeverBiden shill who hates America. Yeah that would be a total shame.
Thank you, I like this comparison more. In any case, I don’t think it’s being fully appreciated that several for-profit companies have this much market share. As a result, I think the wrong questions are being asked. The question to me isn’t whether or not Twitter or Facebook should be moderating their sites as they see fit, but instead how we continue to allow such a small number of companies and people control so much of the world. The only reason these companies’ decisions matter so much is that they’ve become a central part of our lives. A renewed focus on breaking up monopolies and oligopolies would serve the public interest a lot more than focusing on which opinions Twitter admins don’t want to host.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I suggest they try carrier pigeon.
But the business implications behind that isn’t what many conservatives seem to be arguing against right now, which honestly makes some sense. I think the reason that some of this logic is so circular and running counter to many conservative ideals is that it’s intentionally so. Focusing narrowly on the moderation tactics allows Republican talking heads to fight against Twitter and Facebook while simultaneously not acknowledging the real problem of how condensed power is in so many industries, including Big Tech. The Left is doing the inverse, where they don’t mention the business practices that allow Twitter and Facebook to control the discourse because it’s politically convenient for Trump to be banned from Twitter. I still contend Facebook and Twitter can do what they want, because it’s their ****ing company. But if we would stick to a principle of not letting powerful companies control essentially an entire market, we might not be in this mess.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Parler wasn't a competitor to twitter.
Also the reason Parler was shut down wasn't because of Amazon AWS (stormfront has a webhost), it was because they were hacked into oblivion and cannot run. They could have easily found another webhost. It may have lead to a short failure. But nothing to crush them.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
social networks by their very nature have a very powerful first mover or incumbency effect...once they hit a critical mass they suck out the oxygen that competitors need...it's a kind of business that has a natural tendency to become monopolistic...and from economic theory we know there is a public interest in regulating monopolies...the regulation is not always wise, but if done properly leads to better outcomes...i have to say though that i don't think the knowledge and experience we have about how to regulate electric utilities provides much insight about what is the best way to regulate social networks...they are different animals from other kinds of monopolies
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
sure it was
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
lol
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
You're being far too reasonable.
One positive I hope will come from this is that the right side of the political spectrum will overcome their aversion to reasonable regulation. The same side that shut down Net Neutrality is screaming about this. Ironic.
I agree with you that those companies have the right to the actions they took. I also think it's a major long term negative for the country as everyone will become even more siloed.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
After World War II, there was a process called denazification. Since almost everyone in Germany was implicated in one way or another, the process attempted to assess degree of involvement and commitment to the Nazi regime. This helped to sort out who could be trusted with certain jobs and who couldn't.
If I were hiring for a sensitive position and found out an applicant worked for very poorly chosen one, I would have some questions.
If I were hiring for a sensitive position and found out an applicant worked for very poorly chosen one, I would have some questions.