However many people are clamoring for the opposite. The EO is attempting to regulate this in the opposite direction too; it even uses the word "platform" to describe social media.
This failure to define the service for what it is will continue to make this issue muddy and ultimately a mess.
Read the user agreement on each of the services in question. They all explicitly stipulate that user submitted content is subject to censorship. And as we can observe, this is not just written policy, it is put into practice.
A large part of the problem is that so few actually read the fine print before agreeing to use the service, and assumed they were using some free speech platform. They never were, and it is their own fault for not understanding the agreement.
And this will always be the case for these companies. You can't force them to change their ways by government edict. You can try, but you end up with an entirely unnatural situation where they are still biased, but play cat and mouse just enough to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
Many people think this is the answer. Seems unlikely to work out, and just supports the monopoly these companies already enjoy, by supporting the erroneous conclusion that they are the new "town halls". This flawed interpretation traps the users in a service that treats them poorly.
I'd suggest the EO should have aimed for the reverse: classify these services as publishers, once and for all, since that is what they truly are. Lift the veil, expose the truth: these services are abusing the users and their content.
As publishers, the services can be held liable for damages for problematic content. We stop pretending user submitted content on the service is free speech. This allows for competition in this market, where consumers can choose to support the publisher that has the most value. The one that treats them fairly. The one that is not a propaganda tool for globalists.
Agreed, this is demonstrably true.
However many people are clamoring for the opposite. The EO is attempting to regulate this in the opposite direction too; it even uses the word "platform" to describe social media.
This failure to define the service for what it is will continue to make this issue muddy and ultimately a mess.
Read the user agreement on each of the services in question. They all explicitly stipulate that user submitted content is subject to censorship. And as we can observe, this is not just written policy, it is put into practice.
A large part of the problem is that so few actually read the fine print before agreeing to use the service, and assumed they were using some free speech platform. They never were, and it is their own fault for not understanding the agreement.
And this will always be the case for these companies. You can't force them to change their ways by government edict. You can try, but you end up with an entirely unnatural situation where they are still biased, but play cat and mouse just enough to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
Many people think this is the answer. Seems unlikely to work out, and just supports the monopoly these companies already enjoy, by supporting the erroneous conclusion that they are the new "town halls". This flawed interpretation traps the users in a service that treats them poorly.
I'd suggest the EO should have aimed for the reverse: classify these services as publishers, once and for all, since that is what they truly are. Lift the veil, expose the truth: these services are abusing the users and their content.
As publishers, the services can be held liable for damages for problematic content. We stop pretending user submitted content on the service is free speech. This allows for competition in this market, where consumers can choose to support the publisher that has the most value. The one that treats them fairly. The one that is not a propaganda tool for globalists.