- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,707
- 14,589
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Again, fine. Of course, then you get back to the issue that Facebook and Twitter can create their own policies. If they only want to allow liberal speech, then that is their right -- of course they'd lose much of their "reach," as what makes them so large is that we get millions of people on both sides discussing issues.
The danger that I think you miss, if you remove the ability of Twitter and Facebook to control the content, then you also open the door to doing it to all media -- so (if he were alive) -- we could legislate what Rush Limbaugh can do with his show, since he had a similar "monopoly," and then you can start using the government to "censor" what can be said by news organizations like Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax (since we can lump all conservative cable news as a "monopoly" despite there being multiple companies) and the Washington Post and NY Times in print media for their "monopoly."
Either we allow free speech, including the right of companies to determine what speech they choose to allow and promote, or we run the risk of killing free speech.
So then if they can make their own policies regarding what content they want to allow, does that mean you're cool with them allowing Russian disinformation on the platform, and allowing people to post false things about vaccines?
After all, if they're not confined to be neutral, then they can simply allow people to post whatever they want in order to increase ad revenue.
Upvote
0