• @trokhymchuk
    link
    03 years ago

    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to speak whatever he wants was not revoked, his freedom to reach an audience of millions through a specific platform was revoked.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.

    • @fidibus@lemmy.161.social
      link
      fedilink
      33 years ago

      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.

      • @trokhymchuk
        link
        03 years ago

        Do you think that it’s okay to have terms of service

        It is okay. It is not okay to ban someone who violates this ToS and not to ban other (who also violates the) ToS.

        Or do you think that I have the right to post cat content every day on your train forum?

        If my train forum was a huge social network not only about trains — ok.