“But isn't this the only way to prevent the companies that own those digital platforms from doing the exact thing you're complaining about here?”
Ideally, free market solutions are the preferred approach. Competing platforms are starting to emerge, but the old guard is fighting back, Microsoft servers threatening to shutdown GAB if they don’t censor users posts. However, for the most aggregious offenders, monopolies will require anti trust intervention for FB and Alphabet. Intervention has been the default position protecting the companies since the 90s, it’s only now extending protections to the consumer is being given serious consideration. Companies are shielded from liable under the Comm Decency Act if they are platforms or merely act as conduits. When they move beyond that realm and start acting as editors of content it becomes harder to make the argument they haven’t assumed the role of a publisher, opening themselves up to a multitude of lawsuits. You can’t have it both ways and still be considered a “platform”. Modernize the consumer Bill of Rights which already gives people the right to choose, ensuring they have a variety of content & sorting options to choose from and a right to be informed, what data is collected and how its used, a specific reason must be stated for a suspension or ban & a right to privacy, in the age of retaliation people should be able to maintain a shroud of privacy online to protect themselves, unless threatening a life. It’s concerning, since most legislation tends to curtail personal liberties, instead of extending individual freedoms. FB may eventually have to offer a migration assistant or allow competitors to access the platform with their own customized iterations, like switching cable companies that still rely upon much of the same core infrastructure.
“If a newspaper was publishing bomb-making and DIY suicide vest instructions they would be shut down.”
Not really, the supreme court has allowed instructions on how to make an atomic bomb and the Anarchist Cookbook is completely legal in the States for educational purposes.
Attributing volitility solely to misinformation, while ignoring the short sellers and private data misuse which was the issue of greater concern. It was actually a non issue when Obama utilized the same tactics incorporated by Cambridge Analytica, but for a conservative agenda. They do want everyone using it, but thats why they try to make filters subtle and hard to detecct
“The "book burning" rhetoric is exactly the sort of uninformed rubbish that shock-jocks make their money spreading. “
Most content consumed these days is digital, you don’t have to silence a voice, just make their message scarce and drown it out with amplified competing propaganda to tip an election. This has virtually the same effect of a book burning by keeping just enough of the population dumbed down with trivial issues, like the Kardashians, most people don’t have the time to or energy to deeply delve into things. You’re focusing on the most extreme example while ignoring the myriad of other examples already provided that could hardly be construed as “misinformation”. Youtube is already adding “fact checks” to videos that question climate change. Rome had a similarly detached & cosmopolitan attitude before it’s fall. These issues are hard for you to relate to since you’ve never had Free Speech, just empty promises from the Magna Carta, you probably cheered Tommy Robinson being locked up and Laura Southern being denied entry to the UK while Khan lets in all his terrorist buddies in. 15 acid attacks a week in the UK have become the new norm and nobody is allowed to speak out against the root cause which is Muslim Extremism. Didn’t mean to startle anyone, continue sipping your tea kind sir like nothing is wrong with this trajectory.
