We've already established that they remove speech because they don't like it. That part we agree on.
How does it follow that they now own what speech remains?
I do think phone companies should have the option to remove customers for any reason. I would also financially support those companies' competitors, because this is a behavior I disagree with. Nevertheless, they should have that right. Just like private business owners should have the right to do or not do business with whomever they wish, hire or not hire anyone they wish, bake or not bake cakes, for any and no reason what so ever.
I do think phone companies should have the option to remove customers for any reason. I would also financially support those companies' competitors, because this is a behavior I disagree with. Nevertheless, they should have that right. Just like private business owners should have the right to do or not do business with whomever they wish, hire or not hire anyone they wish, bake or not bake cakes, for any and no reason what so ever.
Your understanding of the world is out of sync with the reality of the information-saturated reality we reside within. Social media platforms are not analogous to bakeries, they're in the flour already. You can choose to never go to a bakery yet still flourish in society, but it's very difficult to never use social media and do the same. Services seen as public utilities tend to be regulated with this kind of thing in mind. If 'regulation' is a scary word, remember that section 230 is the regulation protecting facebook in this instance.
How does it follow that they now own what speech remains?
Because they created it. If you allow only one kind of discourse through your platform, which in turn is the one major accepted informational exchange in society, and if all these restrictions boil down to CHOICES made by the platform owners, then somebody needs to own these choices at some stage.
I suspect you could live life just fine without using social media, but even if that's not the case there are alternate platforms such as the one we're on right now. Forcing Reddit or Facebook to platform us and our discussion is not justified.
Fundamentally I am against the notion of public utilities for precisely the sort of trouble such as this. If they're public, they must be allocated equally and without discern. Water, electricity, maybe roads, those things rational minds can disagree on. Facebook? I don't see how that case could be made.
As for 230 being a regulation, I don't think we should need a regulation to allow common sense of if Zuckerberg didn't post violent threats himself, then the person who actually posted them is ultimately responsible and not the company. In general the fewer regulation and government running the show we have, the better. I don't want Nancy Pelosi dictating what I can and can not do with my business, and what is or is not appropriate. If I violate somebody's rights, arrest and sue me. Otherwise leave me alone and stay out of my life. Don't like how I run my business? Don't deal with it.
I understood that you're a libertarian from a couple of posts back and I consciously refrained from saying stuff along the lines of 'well what about roads??' etc. As you say, rational minds can disagree on those things but there's a problem to be resolved there.
The challenge of this century will be about access to information, about any individual's control of information regarding themselves, and about the ability of any individual to make themselves visible in an entirely digital sphere. It's naive to continue to address it in the model of street-corner bakeries or imagine that this is somehow not in the same realm of phones, roads, mail, etc.
Disagree with regulation all you want but we live in a reality where a regulated framework is seen as the norm. I share some of the concerns of an overreaching govt, but if your principles only obstruct your political allies and do nothing to your opponents, then there's yet another problem.
I get the whole uniting against a bigger enemy, but if it is the voices from the Right screaming for more regulation, it isn't going to be the win the Right think it is.
We've already established that they remove speech because they don't like it. That part we agree on.
How does it follow that they now own what speech remains?
I do think phone companies should have the option to remove customers for any reason. I would also financially support those companies' competitors, because this is a behavior I disagree with. Nevertheless, they should have that right. Just like private business owners should have the right to do or not do business with whomever they wish, hire or not hire anyone they wish, bake or not bake cakes, for any and no reason what so ever.
Your understanding of the world is out of sync with the reality of the information-saturated reality we reside within. Social media platforms are not analogous to bakeries, they're in the flour already. You can choose to never go to a bakery yet still flourish in society, but it's very difficult to never use social media and do the same. Services seen as public utilities tend to be regulated with this kind of thing in mind. If 'regulation' is a scary word, remember that section 230 is the regulation protecting facebook in this instance.
Because they created it. If you allow only one kind of discourse through your platform, which in turn is the one major accepted informational exchange in society, and if all these restrictions boil down to CHOICES made by the platform owners, then somebody needs to own these choices at some stage.
I suspect you could live life just fine without using social media, but even if that's not the case there are alternate platforms such as the one we're on right now. Forcing Reddit or Facebook to platform us and our discussion is not justified.
Fundamentally I am against the notion of public utilities for precisely the sort of trouble such as this. If they're public, they must be allocated equally and without discern. Water, electricity, maybe roads, those things rational minds can disagree on. Facebook? I don't see how that case could be made.
As for 230 being a regulation, I don't think we should need a regulation to allow common sense of if Zuckerberg didn't post violent threats himself, then the person who actually posted them is ultimately responsible and not the company. In general the fewer regulation and government running the show we have, the better. I don't want Nancy Pelosi dictating what I can and can not do with my business, and what is or is not appropriate. If I violate somebody's rights, arrest and sue me. Otherwise leave me alone and stay out of my life. Don't like how I run my business? Don't deal with it.
I understood that you're a libertarian from a couple of posts back and I consciously refrained from saying stuff along the lines of 'well what about roads??' etc. As you say, rational minds can disagree on those things but there's a problem to be resolved there.
The challenge of this century will be about access to information, about any individual's control of information regarding themselves, and about the ability of any individual to make themselves visible in an entirely digital sphere. It's naive to continue to address it in the model of street-corner bakeries or imagine that this is somehow not in the same realm of phones, roads, mail, etc.
Disagree with regulation all you want but we live in a reality where a regulated framework is seen as the norm. I share some of the concerns of an overreaching govt, but if your principles only obstruct your political allies and do nothing to your opponents, then there's yet another problem.
I get the whole uniting against a bigger enemy, but if it is the voices from the Right screaming for more regulation, it isn't going to be the win the Right think it is.