Governments don’t control these massively influential communications platforms (Maybe they should?)
In some ways, huge tech companies are more powerful than governments. So why should they have the power to essentially remove ideas from public discussion?
> In some ways, huge tech companies are more powerful than governments
Sure, but in other ways, they are not.
They do not, for example, break the government's monopoly on force; tech companies generally cannot compel you to pay taxes or imprison you. If you make them unhappy, mostly the worst thing they can do is ignore you -- and unlike a government, they cannot force others to ignore you, and they cannot much affect your life outside of their own transactions with you.
The centralization of multiple forms of power is more concerning than the mere existence of power in separate spheres. You say "maybe they should?" but collaboration between the organization that controls force and the organizations that control speech seems like an opportunity for much more substantial oppression.
> So why should they have the power to essentially remove ideas from public discussion?
A private company is not required to publish your rants on the current state of underground mole peoples' infiltration of the highest offices of the world's governments. If you somehow get it onto the platform, and they are made aware of it, they can unpublished it.
Just like the NYT is not required to post every opinion piece that is submitted to them.
The NYT can control what they print, and they are also responsible for what they print.
Twitter can control what it "prints", but is not responsible.
Those situations aren't the same. At all.
Historically, there were platforms (like newspapers) that had full control of what information they disseminated and had full responsibility for that information, and "common carrier" platforms (like the phone company) that did not control what information was disseminated and accordingly were not responsible for it.
Twitter and its brethren want the best of both worlds -- freedom to censor, but no responsibility.
> Twitter can control what it "prints", but is not responsible.
I agree that this is a problem that I wish was addressed, but honestly, I dont know what kind of overreaching, anti-freedom (/s kind of?) law would need to be passed. The reason it worked for news papers was they were printing news, and news has to be true (or at least not outright lies).
Twitter, Facebook, *chan, parlor, Truth social (is that actually a thing yet?) would all just say they dont print the news, and that every post is opinion.
Which even the NYT opinion pieces don't fall under the same editorial scrutiny as their news, and legally are completely separate.
I think you'll find that online media is explicitly protected from being sued for defamatory or infringing content under the DMCA, as long as they take the material down.
Print media cannot "take down" content, but does enjoy a similar immunity as regards third party content. You should probably educate yourself on the subject, it would save you from making silly arguments.
You say that like there aren't hundreds of social media platforms out there now and like it isn't trivial for a technical person to set up your own social media service on some "bulletproof host" in Lithuania or Russia.
There isn't a dearth of social media. There are a couple of GIANT social media websites that have sprung up in the last 2 decades, but there are dozens of semi-popular niche-ier forums that cater to any rant you might want to leave.
This is complaining that you won't be able to get all the audience you want for a deranged mole people rant. It wasn't too long ago that there were only one or two TV channels in any one area - should the mole people rant have been a mandatory presence on those media as well?
And very easy ways for people to create their own platforms/blogs with their own rules too, they almost certainly won't have the same reach as the larger platforms but it seems to be a common view that Facebook/Twitter/etc. owe people access to their platform and maximum potential audience for some reason. Personally I really don't understand how those espousing free speech principles are making arguments that seem to require other private individuals and companies to repeat/amplify speech they don't want to
> And very easy ways for people to create their own platforms/blogs with their own rules too, they almost certainly won't have the same reach as the larger platforms
That's the point. FB/Twitter are now public utility size and usefulness. Your blog, not so much.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that Facebook/Twitter/etc. are too large and have too much power for lobbying/influencing public discourse, although I think if anything making them a public utility would make that situation far worse as opposed to just breaking them up or something else to make the market more competitive
But also just because they are big platforms why does that give people a right to be on them? Is my speech less free because I have a smaller audience?
So this is all about, as another commenter said, complaining that you can't get the largest audience for your mole people rant. Facebook and Twitter are both very large social hubs, but they still get to pick what they publish. They are giving you the ability to publish anything you want until enough people (or the right people) complain about it.
It is democratized moderation. If your following is small enough to skirt the mods, then you can post what ever you want. If your following is huge and you post a bunch of lies about sewer mutants, or that the covid vaccine gives you rabies, or that Hillary Clinton is actually a space alien in cahoots with Planned Parenthood to subsist off the flesh of aborted 6 year olds, then YES, they will remove your posts, and potentially ban you for a period of time.
This literally happens to my aunt every few weeks. She gets a weeks long ban for basically reposting only Russian spam, gets her account back and does it again. It has never even been permanent.
You are absolutely correct. Do you remember when your parents would have some weird rule you didn't agree with, and their justification was "my house, my rules." This is basically the same thing. You don't have to follow the rules, but if you get caught breaking them, there could be some grounding and privileges taken away.
I do not get why people are under the impression that Twitter has to indulge their every tweet. They do not, will not, should not, and have not since the founding of the platform.
If you walk into a McDonalds and start selling your own hamburgers out of the bathroom unbeknownst to them, is it censorship when they finally discover the atrocity and have you removed? Is it stifling competition or free speech? Probably, but their house, their rules.
> So why should they have the power to essentially remove ideas from public discussion?
They don't. They never have. You're ascribing way more power to tech companies than they've ever had.
That being said, the combined power of tech companies and media companies -- of which there are many -- does have the ability you're talking about. (For example, Fox, Warner, Google, Nytimes, etc.) The lines certainly have become a bit blurred, with Comcast and Verizon buying media companies though.
I agree a single company doesn't have all the power, but for some reason they generally seem to act in concert with one another. Take for example the Hunter Biden laptop story. It was suppressed "by mistake" according to Jack himself [1]. Later, survey indicated many voters believed it was a "very important" story [2].
Strangely, practically everyone knows about the Hunter Biden laptop story, so no, that was certainly not very suppressed -- and you certainly did see articles about it in established media organizations, just not all of them. So, no, it was not "essentially removed" from "public discussion" as the OP claimed.
In fact, your bringing up the story (which I immediately recognized) proves the point. It is indeed, part of public discussion.
There were articles about the story published by many mainstream news organizations before the election -- including the Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, Vox, Techcrunch, CNN, CBS News, and USA Today, among others. I fail to see the "supression" of the story from the public discussion, based on the reality of the situation.
Edit: The point is that the story was part of the "public discussion" -- though I understand that some people disagree with some of the articles that were part of the public discussion. Disagreement is a normal part of "discussion." The original claim I was responding to was that this story was "suppressed" from "public discussion." It was not.
You're making no distinction between the content of the coverage. The Hunter Biden laptop story was widely covered pre-election in the context of it being false or disinfo.
It was extremely well known. What you're doing is how Foxnews, the number one cable news network in many situations, claims a story isn't being reported on by the "main stream media".
You've ignored the point. Twitter made the claim that they made a mistake, should they be held to your standard that "you have to offer evidence to prove that claim."
If social media companies actually had the true power to remove topics from public discussion, there would not be public discussion on increasing regulation on these companies or breaking them up.
Well the former Democratic PAC leader now Facebook PR executive had that story pulled until such time it could be “fact checked”. Still waiting 16 months later.
> Governments don’t control these massively influential communications platforms (Maybe they should?)
Trusted News Initiative says otherwise. Which is why all big platforms either censor or warn public on information that is counter to the Western governments narratives.
Try paying for things at a shop or service that only accepts credit cards when you've been banned from having one. Who bans you from that? Payment processors.
If all the insurance companies decide they won't insure you, how will you get health care? The government had to intervene (with the ACA) because that particular problem was so bad.
People trying to immigrate often have to use email to communicate with government agencies. If gmail bans their account, they can no longer talk to the immigration agency. I've seen a couple different people have this exact problem.
There are plenty of other examples.
Certainly governments have the power to do all these things as well, but large influential companies can absolutely ruin your life if you get the wrong kind of attention (or in the case of automated policy decisions, get unlucky).
This is something much different from the previous claim (that companies are as powerful as states). None of this means that the company is more powerful than any state.
And regardless - no business is going to send you to prison, while the state can. No business will shoot you, while the state can. So even in this interpretation of "how much can they fuck up my life" the state wins.
Many of the things I cited are powers that businesses have and the US government does not have. I don't know why this is hard to understand.
Businesses are free to shoot you as well, private security guards can carry guns in most parts of the US. Businesses can also send you to prison via false police reports, which is a thing that has happened periodically.
All things you listed are entirely in the power of governments - even the smallest ones. I'm actually fighting with the state about one of these you listed as we speak (healthcare insurance).
In some ways, huge tech companies are more powerful than governments. So why should they have the power to essentially remove ideas from public discussion?