One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

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.

  • gregorumEnglish
    14•8 months 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.comEnglish
      9•8 months 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.

      • gregorumEnglish
        2•8 months ago

        Because one is violating the first amendment rights of a private company, the other isn’t. Punishing a private company for how an individual uses their platform isn’t constitutional. It would be like holding car manufacturers liable for drunk drivers.

      • ThrowawayEnglish
        -1•8 months ago

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

    • ThrowawayEnglish
      -8•8 months ago

      That’s a good idea, but I still think big sites are public spaces at this point.

      • gregorumEnglish
        5•8 months ago

        “Publicly-accessible private space” and “public space” are two legally-distinct things. In a public town square, you have first amendment rights. In a shopping mall*, your speech and behavior are restricted. This is similar in that regard. Both are publicly-accessible, but one is private property and can be subject to the rules of the property owner.

        Edit: *not applicable to certain behaviors or speech in Californian malls

          • gregorumEnglish
            4•8 months ago

            You should read the link you posted:

            This holding was possible because California’s constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution’s First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech.

            So my analogy wouldn’t apply to Californian shopping malls, but it would to others, and it would apply federally.

            • ThrowawayEnglish
              -3•8 months ago

              Well damn, I got hasty.

              I still think it really should apply federally, but it doesn’t.