It’s not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

  • Throwaway@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    That brings up another thing. At what point does it become a “public space”?

    Theres an old supreme court case on a company town that claimed someone was trespassing on a sidewalk. The supreme court ruled it was a public space, and thus they could pass out leaflets.

    https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/marsh-v-alabama-1946/

    Imo, a lot of big sites have gotten to that stage, and should be treated as such.

    • Lith@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think this is an underrated point. A lot of people are quick to say “private companies aren’t covered by free speech”, but I’m sure everyone agrees legal ≠ moral. We rely on these platforms so much that they’ve effectively become our public squares. Our government even uses them in official capacities, e.g. the president announcing things on Twitter.

      When being censored on a private platform is effectively social and informational murder, I think it’s time for us to revisit our centuries-old definitions. Whether you agree or disagree that these instances should be covered by free speech laws, this is becoming an important discussion that I never see brought up, but instead I keep seeing the same bad faith argument that companies are allowed to do this because they’re allowed to do it.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is an argument for a publicly-funded “digital public square”, not an argument for stripping private companies of their rights.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why not both?

          While I agree that punishing companies for success isn’t a good idea, we aren’t talking about small startups or local business ran by individual entrepreneurs or members of the community here. We’re talking about absurdly huge corporations with reach and influence the likes that few businesses ever reach. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to apply a different set of rules to them, as they are distinctly different situations.

          • Throwaway@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I fully agree. Small groups have limited resources. But google and facebook have a ton of resources, they can handle more oversight.