We really need to stop thinking about social networking sites as private companies, and think about them as the public spaces they actually are. It isn't good for society for a few companies to have a strangle hold on what can be said online.
I do kind of feel for them in some ways because you have different nations with different norms and laws, but the answer isn't some lowest common denominator, and ridding the web of anything, anyone may find objectionable.
Well you shut down the idea yourself, would be completely non-viable due to jurisdiction issues, unless you'd want to follow the US position and even then you'd run into issues.
The biggest problem I'd say isn't necessarily the websites themselves but stuff like the app store and google play store, and things like infrastructure providers. Having your social media be removed from the apple store/google play store is basically killing them in the mass market, and we all know how incredibly selective they are especially when it comes to forbidding platforms that may contain porn(like tumblr for example and initially gab) while also but still allow twitter that is completely inundated with it. And that's before mentioning the downright mental idea that payment processors can just decide to not work with you anymore.
The social media itself I feel is the least of the things that would benefit from being treated closer to a public "utility" for the lack of a better word.
We're way past the point where people can just build their own stuff and be independent when targeting a significant audience(and sometimes even a smaller niche one), you need the support of payment providers, you need the support of app stores, you need the support of ddos mitigation companies/cdn's (especially in a post IOT world where your toaster is part of a botnet), and the list goes on.
I didn't shut down the idea. I just raised the counterpoint.
If Europe decided to say that you can't take down things arbitrarily. What would Facebook do about that? At this point in time a geographically splintered internet with freedom of speech seems better than what we've got at the moment.
I do believe the counterpoint kills the idea, is what I meant. A geographically splintered internet(or rather, geographically splintered "social medias") would just lead to a service showing up that is international and will grow a majority again and the whole cycle begins anew.
The only way I can see this happening would be different instances for each country, as in things would get moderated based on the country laws in question, which I suppose could work in theory, but at that point having enough support staff to actively moderate on a country by country basis is doubtful given how it is currently.
Well presumably moderators need to speak the various local languages. So I don't see why you can't extend that to don't ban people in territory X for mentioning blue eyes.
I understand they don't put enough effort into moderating, because obviously mentioning blue eyes isn't anything. But they should be held accountable for that, not getting away with it, as is the situation we have now.
> Why should we consider them public spaces when they are private companies?
As the other commenter is suggesting a change to the status quo, what legal status they have now isn't important, but instead what matters is role they serve in society.
Personally I think the US idea of freedom of speech is too anarchic to be sustainable, but even with that, the de-facto power that Big Tech has over communication (and commerce) means I think Big Tech should be held to a similar standard in this regard as any government.
The power of their algorithms that decide who sees what content and when. The power to remove people from platforms that are competing to become de facto standards for communication, and to do so for reasons not limited to their legal obligations.
Do you mean “Who is “Big Tech”?” Because I don’t want another ambiguous response in this chain, there are already more than enough we might be on completely different pages.
> Are you claiming that some number of tech companies , a grouping you haven't defined, are in collusion?
Competition, not collusion.
> Do you have proof of this?
The terms and conditions for the various platforms. You know, the stuff you have to click to confirm you’ve read and agreed to but virtually nobody bothers.
Just because terms and conditions are similar doesn't mean there is collusion. Your claim is that this grouping of companies that isn't even well defined per the wiki article is taking actions as a unit
I've explicitly and repeatedly said competition not collusion.
When you asked for proof, I thought you were asking for proof that they could remove people from their platforms for reasons other than legal obligations; that is what I am saying is evidenced by the T&Cs.
You asked me "What power do they have?", and this is that, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32876080 was about that too, and was not whatever you're trying to make this about now.
I do kind of feel for them in some ways because you have different nations with different norms and laws, but the answer isn't some lowest common denominator, and ridding the web of anything, anyone may find objectionable.