zlacker

Why should they be neutral and how would you enforce that? What does "ideological neutral" even mean?

>>Jtsumm+(OP)
Because corporations have disproportionate effect on the public and their mandate is to make money not proseletize whatever brand of BS the CEO happens to believe in.

>>zarkov+T7
Ok, then define "neutral" and how it would be enforced.

>>Jtsumm+r9
It is a tough problem. I think social media companies should treated more like utilities than publishers and should not be held responsible for their content beyond removing illegal materials. I think they should provide their users with the tools they need to moderate their feeds themselves, with an emphasis on transparency and user control. We do not need Twitter and Facebook to protect us from each other.

>>zarkov+jc
> I think social media companies should treated more like utilities

I don't think that's a good, or even workable solution. Social media companies are not public utilities.

>>riffic+Gd
I may have used the wrong term. I do not mean utilities in that sense, I mean they should act as carriers rather than publishers of information. That is more like the phone company and less like the NY Times.

>>Jtsumm+r9
If the Internet companies want common carrier protections like generally not being responsible for user actions, they have to act like a common carrier.

I'm saying this as someone who thinks Twitter in general is stupid, Trump behaves like a clown on Twitter and the best outcome would be if everyone stopped using Twitter.

But you cannot have it both ways, and in that particular issue he is right.