I don't know what you expect. We created this monster by not using the tools we have like antitrust and fcc regulations and now the platforms are so powerful that even attempted to constrain them are going to be heavily influenced by them Till then you're going to see arbitrary decisions like Mark Zuckerberg profiting off the neo Nazis up until the point they erect the gallows on Capitol Hill and then decide he's had enough
As I pointed out in another thread, he has a briefing room and assigned press corps at his beck and call. His free speech abounds.
I haven't had the chance to read through this thread since my last post but just glancing at posts including this one I'm very uneasy with the idea that social media platforms should be treated as part of the public commons where free speech rights would apply or as a public utility if they grow to a certain size. The argument behind regulating a public utility is that it is providing a public good in a situation where it is prohibitive to provide other means, such a it would be hard to get gas to my house from other sources. I don't see social media like that as even though FB and Twitter are very large it's not like there aren't other formats including the one we are on so it's not necessary to be on FB. Regarding at what size they get before free speech rights are enforced I think that is a very subjective standard. To me this would come down to transparency on terms of service and also contract law. If someone is kicked off and that is not following the terms of service then that would be a violation of the contract. I still believe regulation should not be on the basis of free speech but in terms of how they target and manipulate content to continue people viewing.
I'm quite sure if any of those you mention instigated an actual attack on the Capitol they would get booted, too.
First, Kirstie Alley is a moron for equating Twitter banning Donald Trump to slavery. Second, Twitter is a private business, they have the right to establish rules of service and ban accounts that violate said rules. Also, users do share news on Twitter, but Twitter itself is not a news outlet. All they do is provide a platform where people can discuss and provide information about a variety of topics, and they use algorithms to aggregate trending topics into daily news feeds for users. It’s not like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. have a staff of journalists and editors they deploy to break news stories across the nation. There are other means and avenues for people that get banned from certain social media platforms to express their viewpoints, anyway. They can build their own website or start a blog, for example.
I think the bigger issue is are these social media platforms akin to free press. Because I can get on Twitter do I now have the right of freedom of speech? Imo social media is not akin to free press. They are private businesses and the responsibility of public safety is on them and therefore they are free to dictate their standards. If the world burns because of something spread on their platform they are the ones who will be financially and criminally liable and that's the standard. Period
The family of the police officer who lost his life should sue Twitter and then we will get some clarity
@heypartner Social media platforms having standards should create more opportunities for you as people need more apps to allow their speech when others don't
Him also but I'm pointing out suing Twitter to gain clarity on the issue of their responsibility in allowing who and what can be said on their platforms
