Platforms with near-monopoly level control of public discussion should be considered part of the public forum. This weird libertarianism from “lefties” deeply concerns me.
Nobody made you open up a social space to the public, and nobody is making you keep it open. Also I want you to explain how you can reconcile being on the left but also supporting corporate rights over those of individual humans?
Major media outlets and companies should not be considered private platforms. Anyone can sign up and post while they use their money and influence to decide who gets heard. This is a problem, and I’m pretty ticked off about how people don’t seem to mind when it’s in their favor. Double standards are bad, no matter which side.
Do you think Facebook should get to control which posts rise up and which fall with their analytics around election time? Me neither. Sometimes you gotta put up with some ugly if you don’t want people silenced for their perspective. I don’t want an echo chamber.
I’m only coming from the standpoint of how dangerous it is for a mass media outlet to control who has a voice. I don’t know how we can articulate this fairly and would like help for that, but I’m not gonna find help in a sea of people who just wanna take sides and ignore the means.
Why should anyone get to own the only effective avenues of communication? Communication is what determines how the world works.
CP is illegal obviously, and jihad doesn’t make sense in the cute cats category the way ‘straight only game mod’ makes sense in the ‘game mod’ category.
Why should anyone get to own the only effective avenues of communication? Communication is what determines how the world works.
Who currently owns the “only effective avenues of communication”?
CP is illegal obviously, and jihad doesn’t make sense in the cute cats category the way ‘straight only game mod’ makes sense in the ‘game mod’ category.
“Sometimes you gotta put up with some ugly if you don’t want people silenced for their perspective.” Seems there’s a limit to the ugly you’re willing to put up with, and you’re quite willing to silence perspectives yourself.
You cleaely still want people to moderate social networks. I assume you’d want these people to outside the company?
Hell, we’re on a site where you can literally filter what content you see. No one is so pro communication that they’ll happily chat away to someone that they don’t want to be around.
So private platform and private parties shouldn’t have the right to moderate and regulate their own spaces?
Platforms with near-monopoly level control of public discussion should be considered part of the public forum. This weird libertarianism from “lefties” deeply concerns me.
A public forum, I assume paid for and maintained by the taxes of the public?
Nobody made you open up a social space to the public, and nobody is making you keep it open. Also I want you to explain how you can reconcile being on the left but also supporting corporate rights over those of individual humans?
You didn’t answer my question.
Who would pay for the platform, and who would moderate it? Or do you just want even more hate speech to spread?
I see, you cannot reconcile being on the left with supporting corporations over people. Not surprised but thank you for confirming.
Sorry, life got in the way. I’m not surprised you’re not familiar with such matters.
I am surprised how much you support spreading hate speech by removing the ability of moderation.
Major media outlets and companies should not be considered private platforms. Anyone can sign up and post while they use their money and influence to decide who gets heard. This is a problem, and I’m pretty ticked off about how people don’t seem to mind when it’s in their favor. Double standards are bad, no matter which side.
Do you think Facebook should get to control which posts rise up and which fall with their analytics around election time? Me neither. Sometimes you gotta put up with some ugly if you don’t want people silenced for their perspective. I don’t want an echo chamber.
Really? Now I’m curious, how do you imagine that?
I assume the company still pays for the platform, hosting, development, etc. Since it’s public, are they now subsidised by taxes?
Who moderates the platforms then? Are is it all just unmoderated?
Will companies get compansated for lost revenue?
I genuinely curious how you imagine this working.
Yeah, because it’s theirs. They own it.
If I let everyone into my house for a party, doesn’t mean I lose the right to kick people out.
I’m okay with an echo chamber if it means I don’t have to put up with CP and jihadi execution footage in my cute cat feed.
I assume it would be no problem for you.
I’m only coming from the standpoint of how dangerous it is for a mass media outlet to control who has a voice. I don’t know how we can articulate this fairly and would like help for that, but I’m not gonna find help in a sea of people who just wanna take sides and ignore the means.
Why should anyone get to own the only effective avenues of communication? Communication is what determines how the world works.
CP is illegal obviously, and jihad doesn’t make sense in the cute cats category the way ‘straight only game mod’ makes sense in the ‘game mod’ category.
Who currently owns the “only effective avenues of communication”?
“Sometimes you gotta put up with some ugly if you don’t want people silenced for their perspective.” Seems there’s a limit to the ugly you’re willing to put up with, and you’re quite willing to silence perspectives yourself.
You cleaely still want people to moderate social networks. I assume you’d want these people to outside the company?
Hell, we’re on a site where you can literally filter what content you see. No one is so pro communication that they’ll happily chat away to someone that they don’t want to be around.
The line should be drawn at actual harm of course. That can also be indirect.
Ah, so you’re pro moderation when you personally find the contect to be even indirectly harmful.
“Double standards are bad, no matter which side.”