This just means privatizing public spaces becomes a method of censorship. Forcing competitors farther and farther away from your captured audience, by enclosing and shutting down the public media venues, functions as a de facto media monopoly.
Generally speaking, you don’t want a single individual with the administrative power to dictate everything anyone else sees or hears.
So if I own a cafe and I have an open mic night and some guy gets up yelling racial epithets and Nazi slogans, it’s their right to be heard in my cafe and I am just censoring them by kicking them out?
As the one with the administrative power, should I put it up to a vote?
This just means privatizing public spaces becomes a method of censorship. Forcing competitors farther and farther away from your captured audience, by enclosing and shutting down the public media venues, functions as a de facto media monopoly.
Generally speaking, you don’t want a single individual with the administrative power to dictate everything anyone else sees or hears.
My comment was:
So if I own a cafe and I have an open mic night and some guy gets up yelling racial epithets and Nazi slogans, it’s their right to be heard in my cafe and I am just censoring them by kicking them out?
As the one with the administrative power, should I put it up to a vote?
Now, are you going to answer my questions or are we just going to end the conversation here?
Your open mic night hypothetical is not a shadow ban. That’s just a normal ban. Which is I think what people are asking for. If these social media companies are going to censor us on the Internet we essentially built via govt subsidies hell we even essentially build these companies by giving straight to them gov’t subsidies then fuck yea notify us that we are actively being censored.
I think private platforms that do this are acting in an unethical manner. Lots of things that are perfectly legal but of dubious morality. Like fucking a 16 year old as a 40 year old man in Wisconsin or used car dealerships.
Maybe he was speaking morally rather than legally.
For example, if I said “I believe people have a right to healthcare”, you might correctly respond “people do not have a legal right to healthcare” (in America at least). But you’d be missing the point, because I’m speaking morally, not legally.
I believe, morally, that people have a right to be heard.
You are wrong. You have no right to a voice on a private platform.
This just means privatizing public spaces becomes a method of censorship. Forcing competitors farther and farther away from your captured audience, by enclosing and shutting down the public media venues, functions as a de facto media monopoly.
Generally speaking, you don’t want a single individual with the administrative power to dictate everything anyone else sees or hears.
So if I own a cafe and I have an open mic night and some guy gets up yelling racial epithets and Nazi slogans, it’s their right to be heard in my cafe and I am just censoring them by kicking them out?
As the one with the administrative power, should I put it up to a vote?
More if you own Ticketmaster, and you decide you’re going to freeze out a particular artist from every venue you contact with.
And yes. Absolutely censorship.
Changing the scenario doesn’t answer my question.
I came up with a scenario directly related to your previous post.
I can only imagine you are changing the scenario because you realize what I said makes what you said seem unreasonable.
Then why did you change the scenario?
I didn’t. I responded to your comment:
My comment was:
Now, are you going to answer my questions or are we just going to end the conversation here?
Your open mic night hypothetical is not a shadow ban. That’s just a normal ban. Which is I think what people are asking for. If these social media companies are going to censor us on the Internet we essentially built via govt subsidies hell we even essentially build these companies by giving straight to them gov’t subsidies then fuck yea notify us that we are actively being censored.
I think private platforms that do this are acting in an unethical manner. Lots of things that are perfectly legal but of dubious morality. Like fucking a 16 year old as a 40 year old man in Wisconsin or used car dealerships.
Maybe he was speaking morally rather than legally.
For example, if I said “I believe people have a right to healthcare”, you might correctly respond “people do not have a legal right to healthcare” (in America at least). But you’d be missing the point, because I’m speaking morally, not legally.
I believe, morally, that people have a right to be heard.