I do not understand how people can support #XKCD #1357 and still say they support free speech.
Having a platform on which free speech is very important, and is the height of fairness. Without such platforms, the first amendment is useless.
I do understand it from the viewpoint of individuals having the right to remove content they don't want, and that's totally fine. But for ubiquitous platforms that behave in this manner as described in #1357, they can't do that and say they are a platform; no, you are a publisher.
This action is akin to a publication firing a columnist.
@realcaseyrollins I think this argument is interesting but something tells me there is a logics trap that I'm not seeing.
Mandatory:
My federated social network does not have this problem.
@compass_straight_edge Interesting. I would like to hear critiques of my logic here, I tried not to use faulty logic.
> My federated social network does not have this problem.
Quite true! Which is what I love about it. But my statement mostly applies to larger social network sites that have near-ubiquity and declare themselves as platforms, gaining protections as such without actually behaving as platforms.
@realcaseyrollins I think the argument is very sound and I like it.
But I know it came out of US pol, so I'm afraid there is some small letters on the legal definition of "publisher" that will release a shit storm.
(i'm not american)
@compass_straight_edge Yeah, it does indeed have severe repercussions, which is why these companies strive to be protected as platforms.
On a platform, the host is not responsible for the messages shared. For publishers, the hosts are liable for the messages on the platform.
Many have been arguing that Section 230, which protects platforms if they only moderate "offensive speech", isn't supposed to protect entities that censor on ideological lines, and I am part of that camp.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
@realcaseyrollins Yes, this is the part I find interesting. I'm worried there is something more that I'm not seeing, because I'm not familiar with american laws and any subtlety in the legal definition of "publisher" and "platform".
In principle though, I would be favorable to platforms and publishers being able to publish basically anything.
Exceptions might be things like: calling for violence against a person.
@compass_straight_edge I certainly am glad you're not willing to just take my word on this. That's critical thinking, which is fairly rare around these parts.
Heck, we all know I have my own biases 😉