Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 45,351
I am too, BUT...
When it is so big and ubiquitous that it has become the equivalent of shutting down free speech for the population at large, it's probably time to regulate specifically to the extent that the freedoms are curtailed.
I'm loathe to support it, but the more they selectively censor the more I support intervention against it.
Ideally competition would come along - and has - that offers a choice of a platform without censorship, but these social media giants have become too big to compete with. Especially since the reach inherently matters as much as the platform and any competing platform can really only offer an extremely tiny fraction of the reach of facebook and twitter. And they seem to be conspiring together.
Nowadays social media companies have a greater ability to squash our first amendment than the government does. This is too dangerous, this too much threatens our basic freedoms to continue.
We are essentially at the threshold of competing rights that are sitting at cross purposes. Of course, a company should have the right to run their business how they see fit, even if it includes bias and unfairness. But the very nature of this business is to operate within the purview of the basic rights and freedoms of those who use it, and it's become so pervasive that more people use it than vote. And the rights of the masses outweigh the constitutional rights of the few when at odds.
Not to mention, the owners of the social media platforms chose this arena. Just as, if for example all airline companies banned all muslims from flying we wouldn't allow it, we shouldn't allow social media companies to censor political speech nor information (articles) that are critical of public figures.
It's become a back door for violating constitutionally guaranteed rights. If we don't tread very carefully, and soon, the constitution will be rendered about as relevant as the code of Hammurabi.
