Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach. His freedom to speak whatever he wants was not revoked, his freedom to reach an audience of millions through a specific platform was revoked.
Currently, platforms have no obligation to host content they do not want to host. I think this should be expanded to mandate that platforms have a fiduciary responsibility to promote the well-being of their users by restricting content that is widely harmful, and maintaining content that calmly challenges established beliefs. Most platforms currently exploit and addict users with misleading hyper-sensationalized content that serves the bottom line at the expense of the user, I believe this is an abuse of freedom of reach that erodes civility, causes hysteria, and promotes hateful divisiveness. When freedom of reach is less restricted (as it largely has been until recently) then whomever spends the most resources will have the widest audience and the most influence.
Should the public conscious be for-sale to the highest bidder with the most addictive content?
I believe if a person’s content is causing measurable hysteria, hatefulness, and division, then platforms should not host such harmful content.
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach. His freedom to speak whatever he wants was not revoked, his freedom to reach an audience of millions through a specific platform was revoked.
Oh, it was. And it was not just one platform, it was several ones.
Currently, platforms have no obligation to host content they do not want to host
I think we need some rules for big platform like this. But now there is no rule to host everyone, so my only criticism is that they blocked him, but not other questionable personalities.
Oh, it was. And it was not just one platform, it was several ones.
Do you think that it’s okay to have terms of service? Or do you think that I have the right to post cat content every day on your train forum?
Okay, that’s established. Now is it okay for several social media platforms to ban someone that violates their terms of service?
I agree that their reach is immense but social media isn’t needed to live. Even a supermarket wouldn’t be responsible to let someone in that’s wildly misbehaving, even if that person was very hungry (which would make their need to go there more important than otherwise).
I would totally be fine with legislation to force monopoly social media like fb and insta to implement interoperability, so you can participate from different platforms.
You can disagree with his political views, but freedom of speech is very important for democratic society.
BTW, there is a cool and federated twitter alternative — mastodon.
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach. His freedom to speak whatever he wants was not revoked, his freedom to reach an audience of millions through a specific platform was revoked.
Currently, platforms have no obligation to host content they do not want to host. I think this should be expanded to mandate that platforms have a fiduciary responsibility to promote the well-being of their users by restricting content that is widely harmful, and maintaining content that calmly challenges established beliefs. Most platforms currently exploit and addict users with misleading hyper-sensationalized content that serves the bottom line at the expense of the user, I believe this is an abuse of freedom of reach that erodes civility, causes hysteria, and promotes hateful divisiveness. When freedom of reach is less restricted (as it largely has been until recently) then whomever spends the most resources will have the widest audience and the most influence.
Should the public conscious be for-sale to the highest bidder with the most addictive content?
I believe if a person’s content is causing measurable hysteria, hatefulness, and division, then platforms should not host such harmful content.
Oh, it was. And it was not just one platform, it was several ones.
I think we need some rules for big platform like this. But now there is no rule to host everyone, so my only criticism is that they blocked him, but not other questionable personalities.
Do you think that it’s okay to have terms of service? Or do you think that I have the right to post cat content every day on your train forum?
Okay, that’s established. Now is it okay for several social media platforms to ban someone that violates their terms of service?
I agree that their reach is immense but social media isn’t needed to live. Even a supermarket wouldn’t be responsible to let someone in that’s wildly misbehaving, even if that person was very hungry (which would make their need to go there more important than otherwise).
I would totally be fine with legislation to force monopoly social media like fb and insta to implement interoperability, so you can participate from different platforms.
It is okay. It is not okay to ban someone who violates this ToS and not to ban other (who also violates the) ToS.
If my train forum was a huge social network not only about trains — ok.
deleted by creator
I don’t like politicians very much, but I agree with the people at the top
You have no right to chose that some person needs to be banned. No one has.
You can say, that he is telling stupid things, but you can’t say ‘lets ban him’.
deleted by creator
If his words are dangerous to society, he should be sued. But there is no need to lynch him.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Actually, it does. You just need real evidence.
Trump has the wealth, but he still was deplatformed for quite a long time (and he still doesn’t get his twitter account back).
deleted by creator