Perhaps I'm using the word "censor" in a way that points to the government being the censor. But I mean it to be more encompassing of any entity that has the right to remove content from communications channels.
Currently the platforms are private (as a peer comment points out). So right now there isn't technically a "freedom of speech" issue as it's a private matter and private entities in the USA don't need to respect the 1st amendment.
As a thought experiment -- suppose the social media platforms were turned into "utilities" and completely absolved of the responsibility (or even the authority) to "censor" speech. In the same way someone's phone doesn't turn off if they make a threatening phone call. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Would losing the ability for anyone to remove content be fundamentally bad? Given that we have social mechanisms that existed prior to digital communication for countering bad speech?
As to your question, the fact that some people do support the suspension by the platform controllers (currently private) of accounts that post inflammatory speech would suggest that yes, some folks do think that censorship is a good idea.
I think most people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what social media platforms are and how they operate, all of which is laid out within the contractual obligations of the mutually agreed upon terms of service.
If you post something to say, Twitter, that is now their content that you have given to them for their benefit with the sole purpose of extracting value from the attention the content you handed over to them brings through the sale of advertising. That sale of advertising is what keeps the servers up and the engineers keeping it glued together paid. The surplus is profit distributed to the shareholders. This is of course an exchange where the value you extract stems from having your content amplified or enhanced in some way by their service. If for any reason any actor’s interaction with the service is determined to lead to a net loss, the only appropriate course of action is to remove that actor from the system.
The real problem isn’t a free speech or censorship issue, it is an anti-trust issue where a single entity has such an overwhelming control of a particular stream of media that their actions have excessive impact on the business and social ecosystems. Whether it is an anti-trust issue can be determined on how difficult it is for a competitor to establish themselves profitably in the marketplace. What sort of moats would need to be overcome to properly compete with e.g. Twitter given the monumental first mover advantage of that particular media stream... the media stream they created and proved?
In simpler terms, whether Facebook / Google / etc banning something they deem detrimental to their financial success having potential egregious impact on culture, society... whatever, is more a sign that these products have established themselves into the market in a way that’s fundamentally problematic and needs examination and effort to alleviate.
Should they turn into a public utility would change the entire business model and power dynamic and is not really relevant to what’s happening here. If for example the United States nationalized AWS and provided it as a civic web services infrastructure, free speech laws would be understood under a very different power dynamic. Censorship issues would be brought up and likely dealt with systemically, like not allowing the people running it from looking at what you’re hosting (you can organize a terrorist attack on the United States over the US postal service, by consequence of its intentional design).
> If you post something to say, Twitter, that is now their content that you have given to them for their benefit with the sole purpose of extracting value from the attention the content you handed over to them brings through the sale of advertising.
Unless the article shared here yesterday titled "you are wrong about section 230" is itself wrong... Then everything in this part seems to be wrong.
> suppose the social media platforms were turned into "utilities" and completely absolved of the responsibility (or even the authority) to "censor" speech.
They’d become even deeper cesspools than current Twitter and decent folk would avoid them, moving to more “curated” private platforms.
Think of the graffiti you see in public restrooms: that’s unmoderated, unrestricted free speech. There’s a ton of jerks out there who love to ruin it for everybody.
There’s no “right to tweet.” I feel like this line of thinking takes social media way too seriously.
There’s nothing legally or ethically wrong with having something like Twitter that is more of a neutral communication channel. I’m sure it exists. It’s just that Twitter is popular. Regulations that make something like the-Twitter-we-actually-have illegal are a step in the wrong direction. Twitter was started by human beings with certain values and goals, like making it easier to tell your friends what you are up to, and making money. If they don’t want blood on their hands, that’s
their choice.
The fact this isn't a 1st amendment issue doesn't mean by extension this isn't a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech as a concept is much broader than the 1st amendment as well as the United States. Anonymous feedback boxes are an example of an tool meant to ensure freedom of speech.
Currently the platforms are private (as a peer comment points out). So right now there isn't technically a "freedom of speech" issue as it's a private matter and private entities in the USA don't need to respect the 1st amendment.
As a thought experiment -- suppose the social media platforms were turned into "utilities" and completely absolved of the responsibility (or even the authority) to "censor" speech. In the same way someone's phone doesn't turn off if they make a threatening phone call. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Would losing the ability for anyone to remove content be fundamentally bad? Given that we have social mechanisms that existed prior to digital communication for countering bad speech?
As to your question, the fact that some people do support the suspension by the platform controllers (currently private) of accounts that post inflammatory speech would suggest that yes, some folks do think that censorship is a good idea.