You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Internet Censorship: President Trump Fights Back
I don't know... I'm not a big fan of government deciding what private companies publish, whether its a search engine or something else. Who gets to decide whether conservative or liberal sites show up high enough in the list or at all? If conservatives think this is a real problem than conservatives moving to alternative choices and taking business away from google (or whoever) would be a better solution.
I agree, except that free speech needs to be upheld regardless of who is speaking. I support free speech for liberals as well... that way everybody can get a good laugh!
Yes, but free speech means that you cannot be censored by government, not that private companies have to publish your speech. That's why I'm against government enforcing it's arbitrary standards for search engines or anyone else. It is essentially another kind of censorship. I'm not a fan of google or youtube censoring stuff but people can make their own decisions on whether or not to use those services. Just because they are currently dominant doesn't mean they are the only choices (they certainly aren't) or that they will always be dominant. I'd rather see people start moving to those alternatives than government stepping in. That will only lead to more problems in the long run including the fact that government regulation will make it harder for smaller alternatives to survive because there will be costs associated with those regulations.
Are they Neutral Platforms or are they Publishers? They claim to be neutral platforms and thus falling under regulations for neutral platforms if as you say they are publishers then they need to declare that.
There shouldn't be any regulations. That's kind of my point. It's impossible for Google or anybody else to be truly neutral anyway. They all use algorithms to rank things or have guidelines for the content they allow. A truly neutral platform could have none of that. There is no truly neutral algorithm or publishing guideline.
At any rate, google publishes search results so they are publishing something. Youtube publishes peoples' videos but in concept it's not all that different from a book publisher. These are not neutral carriers like say an ISP nor could they ever be even under the most ideal conditions.
That isn't to say I agree with how they censor things, just that there is no easy or obvious way for government to draw a line and enforce it objectively. Market competition is the way to solve this. Don't like the way these guys do business? Choose a competitor. More people doing this will make the internet a healthier place anyway. Government heavy-handedness will just create government regulated monopolies.
I agree with the sentiment, allowing the market to deal with it, but there are already regulations regarding "Neutral Platforms" that these companies take advantage of so why not hold them to these already existing regulations.
At the same time I voted with my feet and am loving it here on Steemit! Abandon the dinosaur social media.
Not if they don't get to see the choices to make them. Free speech is free speech- it doesn't matter what the venue and it applies to all or none.
You don't have free speech in my house or my place of business or on my Facebook page. Of course the venue matters. Your rights end where mine begin.