You're arguing in bad faith if you think that books or telephones have the same kinds of dynamics that social media does. And if you want to pick examples from those, no one forces local book stores to carry some racist screed calling for the extermination of a group of people. They can choose to not do that, the same as Facebook can choose to not publish something. The problem is that there are multiple, competing bookstores, so while it's unlikely that most of them are going to publish the racist screed, there certainly exist stores that will carry books with varying points of view. Facebook, on the other hand, benefits from positive network externalities to the point where for some people it becomes 'the internet'.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-... - this stuff has real world consequences. What's the best way to deal with that? I think we all agree that "quash all debate and dissent" is not good. But "just let people post whatever, wherever with no consequences" is not great either. I don't have all the answers.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-... - this stuff has real world consequences. What's the best way to deal with that? I think we all agree that "quash all debate and dissent" is not good. But "just let people post whatever, wherever with no consequences" is not great either. I don't have all the answers.