I was going to say, there are plenty of subs for pedaling that kind of content, but looks like the major one, r/NoNewNormal was just quarantined (ironic) today, which is often the first step towards a total ban. Reddit's a private company, and if they don't want that kind of content on their site, shouldn't that be their choice?
The problem with the "private company" line that, yes, they're a private company, but censorship is definitely still bad!
Free speech is a fundamentally protected right in the US. From the Founder's perspective, the greatest threat to that right was clearly and obviously government, because what other entity could possibly have that much reach into one's life? Up until the internet age, no one could imagine a private company or a private individual having the capacity to infringe upon free speech at scale.
So, we have a Constitutional right to free speech, protected against infringement by the government, which is great, but there is another threat to the free flow of information and ideas, and that is private corporations who can now infringe upon this right at scale. And we don't have the tools or framework to defend it, because private companies can do what they want? Thats not good enough for me. The situation is dire when private companies appoint themselves to be the arbiters of truth, because even with the best intentions, there are bound to be mistakes, as we've already seen. And they don't all have the best intentions.
You post about free speech but appear to be quite ignorant about the topic. Example why is it considered a crime to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? Educate yourself and stop posting annoying banal rhetoric.
That’s all you have to say? The fire in a theater example (and you call me banal)? You really can’t think of any other form of speech that has been unfairly censored by social media sites?
Your reading comprehension seems a bit lacking, casting doubt on your other statements. To be clear I am asserting that your claim censorship by private companies is unjust; that is banal, annoying, and ignorant.
Do or do you not think it’s a good thing for private individuals to be able to unilaterally censor what can be said in what really is the new public square?
The fact you perceive any particular message posted to any particular for profit social media site as being a “public square” is more the result of successful marketing and ignorance than reality.
Hacker news, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc. are private properties surrounding the public square.
You can do what you like (within the bounds of the law, because even public squares have rules) with your own property on the web, but you also have to follow the rules of any other establishment if you enter.
I’m not sure why this is so hard for pageandrew to grasp. I assume they think since anyone can register and use these sites, they think that makes them “public” when in fact people who register with and use these sites are paying for the privilege; with their personal data, their attention, their clicks, and their manufactured outrage that drive engagement, precisely what pageandrew is trying to do here.
User pageandrew can set up their own stall by the web public area and publish whatever they wish, discuss whatever they wish with whomever they wish, also censor whoever they wish. It’s their stall, their property. Just as twitter etc are the property of others. Pageandrew.com will most likely not have the views or clicks though, and that’s what they need to peddle their outrage.
I'm not calling pageandrew out personally - it seems like many people on this site can't seem to see the forest for the trees in this regard. The narrative that a few FAANG sites have completely centralized and commoditized the web to the point that they have de facto become the web is necessary for the fear narrative of a vast leftist conspiracy controlling the media and persecuting free thinkers, but also completely wrong.
Look at Youtube. The platform has been demonetizing and deplatforming accounts for obscure and opaque reasons for years, and not just Conservatives and gun videos. The result has been people advertising their non YT content on alternative platforms. If enough people are upset with the way a platform does business, they go elsewhere.
People get kicked off of 4chan, they move to 8chan. They get kicked off of Reddit, they go to Voat. Plenty of platforms serving the persecution complex of modern Conservatives, Trump supporters, incels and the alt-right have shown up on Hacker News. Gab and Parler still exist, and are still cesspools of free speech. And that's just on the open web.
Censorship at the platform level is not a problem, because there can always be alternative platforms. Censorship at the network level is a problem. That's why I'm vehemently opposed to arguments that the government should step in and regulate all social media platforms, or force them to publish content against the will, or require a judge to sign off on any moderation action. I'd rather have parts of the web play by rules I don't agree with than have the whole thing play by one set of rules at the point of a gun.
