zlacker

[return to "Meta Censoring '#Democrat' on Instagram"]
1. mjbale+G3[view] [source] 2025-01-21 09:48:58
>>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"

◧◩
2. ffsm8+Z6[view] [source] 2025-01-21 10:15:06
>>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?

◧◩◪
3. andrep+u72[view] [source] 2025-01-21 22:44:50
>>ffsm8+Z6
> Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are private companies. They should be free to censor whatever they decide to censor.

Why? Private companies can't dump waste onto a river, can't build buildings not up to code, can't discriminate based on religion or sex, can't prevent their employees from joining a union, can't evade taxes (well these last 2 only in theory I admit)... Meta owns platforms with 3B, 2B, 2B users (fb, insta, whatsapp); why the hell wouldn't it be possible, in principle, to regulate them as public utilities and forbid them by law from censorship or other nefarious practices?

Your phone company can't spy on your conversations and your power company can't shut you off if you are black. Only on a society completely far off the deep end of neoliberal philosophy would people even think to invoke "but it's a private company" like some sort of holy taboo.

◧◩◪◨
4. ffsm8+y23[view] [source] 2025-01-22 06:15:21
>>andrep+u72
> why the hell wouldn't it be possible, in principle, to regulate them as public utilities and forbid them by law from censorship or other nefarious practices?

You're arguing with a strawman, I never said it's impossible in principle. I said it isn't currently categorized as a utility, hence they are free to censor as they see fit.

It's entirely possible for the courts of the USA to deem it a utility, and it'd be interested to see the long term effects of such ruling.

The ruling would only apply to citizens of the USA, so it'd be very interesting to see how the companies in question implemented the changes to stay compliant.

It'd be an interesting case study, but it's impossible to speculate on its fallout until a clear plan has been drafted. I.e. It could potentially make it impossible for newcomers to create platforms, depending on the angle for such a regulation. Or it could make changes to the algorithm borderline impossible etc.

basically countless pitfalls and without a clear draft, nothing of value can be discussed

[go to top]