475
Comments (44)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
2
pepperconchobhar 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think that a company should have the right to decide what their platform is. Then lay it all out in the terms and conditions, and let conversations happen within the parameters that they've set.

Take TDW, for instance. We're a right-wing rally in support of President Trump. That's clearly stated. So the admins have the right to keep the conversation focused there and to deport shills and disruptors.

But FB, YT, and the twit want it both ways. They want to be all-encompassing platforms that monopolize the entirety of the internet while still controlling the conversations. Then they write their rules as vague as possible so they can play with the rules as much as they want.

Doing bullshit like NOT TELLING ANYONE what their rules really are (I'm looking at you, YT) is where we get the dirty dealings.

3
Pigpenlordofdirt [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thats a good point but 230 already allows for platforms to avoid liability without moderation. It also allows for a fair amount of moderation in the case that laws are being broken but even without that caveat FB and others wouldn't be held accountable.

Also TDW is a forum which is slightly different from a platform.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-for-you-between-a-forum-a-community-platform-and-a-social-network

2
pepperconchobhar 2 points ago +2 / -0

Great link. I appreciate that one.

2
Pigpenlordofdirt [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

No problem always happy to have concersations