Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
These things will govern themselves in the long run. If one platform gets too restrictive (or isn't restrictive enough), people will go to another platform. If the market is there, it will do well.
It's really no different than other forms of media. TV networks have restrictions on content. You can't go the Cooking Network and try to promote weird conspiracy theories about elections. You can go on FOX News and do it, and apparently there is a market for it. Any website should be free to filter any kind of content they want to distribute, just like TV, radio, print media, etc... Like the other forms of media, if there are various audiences that want their own thing, it will materialize at some point.
For a long time, the World Weekly News was one of the biggest selling publications, but that doesn't mean the New York Times or Boston Herald are biased or harming freedom if they don't let them run stories about the Bat Boy in their papers.
|
The difference is, all of those publications and networks are regulated and legally responsible for what they publish. Social media companies on the other hand argue they're neutral tech platforms when it's convenient (i.e. when they want to avoid any kind of regulation) but that they're publishers when it makes sense to do so (i.e. when they want to be able to have editorial control over what's published on their platforms).