I disagree with the use of a vague phrase like 'hateful content' in a context like limiting platforms that support societal discourse. That term has more clear meaning to me when it is used to describe content that explicitly suggests violence (as in physical violence). But when it comes to 'placing limits' on platforms (AKA censoring), it is often used in expansive and arbitrary ways.
For instance, Reddit recently banned a subreddit called "Gender Critical", whose premise was disagreement with progressive gender ideology, and it had over 60K members. While I did not follow this subreddit, I personally feel that's a fine discussion to have. After all, gender identity is a controversial topic that is far from settled, and it is still very new in its current incarnation (meaning the ideology surrounding it in progressive America as opposed to historical views or views in other geographies). Society is still very divided on this topic (https://www.prri.org/spotlight/gender-identity-significant-p...), and that debate needs to happen and will continue to happen for years. But Reddit instead chose to ban this subreddit outright, with no warning, under the guide of removing 'hateful content'. I feel that is inappropriate, and yet censorship of this form is being normalized on all the major big tech platforms (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, YouTube).
Instead of limiting platforms in a way that is content-specific, how about just limiting platforms in more neutral ways? Platforms beyond some size (maybe based on number of users) should be held to standards of neutrality that are grounded in our laws, or split up on anti-trust grounds. It's not good for us to have duopolies (Visa/Mastercard) or oligopolies (big tech) that have degrees of reach/power/influence that are comparable to governments but operate without Constitutional constraints (freedom of speech in particular).
For instance, Reddit recently banned a subreddit called "Gender Critical", whose premise was disagreement with progressive gender ideology, and it had over 60K members. While I did not follow this subreddit, I personally feel that's a fine discussion to have. After all, gender identity is a controversial topic that is far from settled, and it is still very new in its current incarnation (meaning the ideology surrounding it in progressive America as opposed to historical views or views in other geographies). Society is still very divided on this topic (https://www.prri.org/spotlight/gender-identity-significant-p...), and that debate needs to happen and will continue to happen for years. But Reddit instead chose to ban this subreddit outright, with no warning, under the guide of removing 'hateful content'. I feel that is inappropriate, and yet censorship of this form is being normalized on all the major big tech platforms (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, YouTube).
Instead of limiting platforms in a way that is content-specific, how about just limiting platforms in more neutral ways? Platforms beyond some size (maybe based on number of users) should be held to standards of neutrality that are grounded in our laws, or split up on anti-trust grounds. It's not good for us to have duopolies (Visa/Mastercard) or oligopolies (big tech) that have degrees of reach/power/influence that are comparable to governments but operate without Constitutional constraints (freedom of speech in particular).