No, it's not. Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be.
And, there must be some types of moderation to all speech, all.
> And, there must be some types of moderation to all speech, all.
There definitely needs to be moderation. But having the power to moderate speech on such a significant platform in the hands of 3 private parties is bad. Not that I think their recent decisions are wrong. But the lack of recourse is scary, and dangerous. Not just dangerous because 'what if they abuse it'.
It is dangerous because people censored by them are much more likely to feel that it _is_ abuse. Hence they don't take the signal and instead have a massive sense of injustice. "How can a decision so big, without appeal being possible, be fair" they think.
> Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be.
Social media is the sole source of news and discussion for a lot of people. Sure, there are alternatives, but they fail to reach a large amount of people.
No, it's not. Social media is more like a small printing press that will print anyone's little pamphlet. It may be new but it was never the only venue and never will be.
And, there must be some types of moderation to all speech, all.