bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,279
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
The argument from congress critters against these social media sites is exactly that they are acting as a capitalistic, competitive sites advancing their political views. They have been given special legal protections because they claimed they were only an open forum and didn't edit content (so weren't legally responsible for content). The argument is if they should be recognized as publishers, which are free to advance any views they wish, which would remove their special legal protections and put them on a legally level playing field with other publishers.No, that's capitalism - using your financial clout and ownership of resources to advance your own opinions and suppress those you dislike.
Every wealthy person and powerful corporation does this, and always has. It's not censorship, and it's not new.
If you think capitalism has some serious problems, you are right. But the workings of capitalism are not censorship, even when they have the effect of getting VASTLY more airtime for (eg) Rupert Murdoch's opinion, and vastly less for repoman's.
For one example: Operators of open forums can not be sued for liable or slander but publishers can.
That just highlights a major problem with our system of laws - it's very bad at handling truly novel situations.
The idea that you are either a publisher, or not responsible for any defamation in your media, is a stupid false dichotomy that got enshrined in law back in a prior era, when it was sufficiently true that it didn't matter.
Social media is a square peg, and fits neither the round nor the triangular holes - but the law assumes that it must fit one or the other.
Eventually someone will pass laws that reflect the new reality. Until then, people will be able to act unethically without legal censure; Or will be prevented from perfectly reasonable and ethical actions by the law; or both.