zlacker

>>vool+(OP)
- "It violates freedom of speech!"

- "This is a free market; if you do not like it use another platform!"

- "I thought $conglomerate" had our back! They had rainbows and all; is that all it took them to fold"?

- "No, this is not a systemic issue; conversation needs to be steered away from attacking the system and rather its a few bad apples! Go after them and stop asking for systemic changes!"

- "Any attempt at regulating companies in an assault on #freedom and must not be tolerated"

>>mjbale+G3
I am against almost all kinds of censorship, the only times I personally believe things should be censored if it's inciting violence/death threats to people. And even then I feel like censorship is probably the wrong way to do it.

And from that perspective, these quotes you're currently touting are ripped out of their context, making them sound asinine despite being mostly on point, fundamentally.

Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are private companies. They should be free to censor whatever they decide to censor.

I would personally hate it if they did, and it'd hope we'd get a competing platform that doesn't censor and that that'd become the standard, but it is what it is.

If a government makes the company censor something, then that is a violation of free speech (which I sadly don't have, as I'm not from the USA). And isn't that what happened in the context of Corona/antivax?

>>ffsm8+Z6
Your internet provider is also a private company. Do you think it should be free to censor you and close your contract if you visit websites they don't agree with?

>>dist-e+qh
While youre touching on a real issue, your phrasing doesn't really convey you've understood the issue you're touching on, honestly.

What you're actually putting forth is wherever large social media platforms should be treated as utilities. (Which ISPs are).

If the legislative decided to categorize it as a utility, then any censorship the company decided to do could potentially infringe on your free speech, yes.

However, this is not the case as of today. If it's deemed as such, it'd definitely have a global effect. Wherever that'd be positive would be an interesting case study.

And I might add: lots of ISPs host DNS servers which do in fact censor / block certain domains from resolving

>>ffsm8+xl
> your phrasing doesn't really convey you've understood the issue you're touching on, honestly.

I've understood it very well, I find it very funny that people which say stuff like Google is a private company and should do what it wants are the same people which say Google should respect net-neutrality (peering agreements, ...) and not do what it wants when it's about core networking and not social media.