• SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Major media outlets and companies should not be considered private platforms.

    Really? Now I’m curious, how do you imagine that?

    I assume the company still pays for the platform, hosting, development, etc. Since it’s public, are they now subsidised by taxes?

    Who moderates the platforms then? Are is it all just unmoderated?

    Will companies get compansated for lost revenue?

    I genuinely curious how you imagine this working.

    Anyone can sign up and post while they use their money and influence to decide who gets heard.

    Yeah, because it’s theirs. They own it.

    If I let everyone into my house for a party, doesn’t mean I lose the right to kick people out.

    Sometimes you gotta put up with some ugly if you don’t want people silenced for their perspective. I don’t want an echo chamber.

    I’m okay with an echo chamber if it means I don’t have to put up with CP and jihadi execution footage in my cute cat feed.

    I assume it would be no problem for you.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m only coming from the standpoint of how dangerous it is for a mass media outlet to control who has a voice. I don’t know how we can articulate this fairly and would like help for that, but I’m not gonna find help in a sea of people who just wanna take sides and ignore the means.

      Why should anyone get to own the only effective avenues of communication? Communication is what determines how the world works.

      CP is illegal obviously, and jihad doesn’t make sense in the cute cats category the way ‘straight only game mod’ makes sense in the ‘game mod’ category.

      • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        Why should anyone get to own the only effective avenues of communication? Communication is what determines how the world works.

        Who currently owns the “only effective avenues of communication”?

        CP is illegal obviously, and jihad doesn’t make sense in the cute cats category the way ‘straight only game mod’ makes sense in the ‘game mod’ category.

        “Sometimes you gotta put up with some ugly if you don’t want people silenced for their perspective.” Seems there’s a limit to the ugly you’re willing to put up with, and you’re quite willing to silence perspectives yourself.

        You cleaely still want people to moderate social networks. I assume you’d want these people to outside the company?

        • VaultBoyNewVegas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Hell, we’re on a site where you can literally filter what content you see. No one is so pro communication that they’ll happily chat away to someone that they don’t want to be around.

        • Mango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          The line should be drawn at actual harm of course. That can also be indirect.

          • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Ah, so you’re pro moderation when you personally find the contect to be even indirectly harmful.

            “Double standards are bad, no matter which side.”