I don't agree with her but her only argument is the government should make these calls rather then private companies. She probably even agrees with what they did just doesn't think anyone except the government should have that power.
Actually, the worst possible party to limit your free speech is government. The government holds an exclusive monopoly on violence and killing. Almost every government that has obtained power over speech uses their violence monopoly to enforce it.
The best party to limit speech that is considered bad is private individuals and companies in their own venues. If I own a comedy theater, I should be able to kick out obnoxious patrons or comics. They can always go somewhere else. The same principle applies online, only it is much easier for someone who is not welcome in one community to go somewhere else or start their own.
Never give the government control over what is acceptable speech, let each business cater to the crowd they want.
A functioning democratic government is accountable to its people, while a private corporation is only accountable to its shareholders. Depending what you believe politically either, none or both could be true. Ultimately free markets can work against societal good just as much as an overly stringent and unaccountable government.
Maximally accountable government and a moderately and fairly regulated market seems to be best of both worlds, but as we know it’s difficult. We’re looking at the extremes now in terms of speech - Parler has people literally planning attacks on the government in the open, that’s probably bad in terms of societal good.
Finally a reminder that the ultimate point of corporations existing is for societal good. As is our government.
The difference between a government and a corporation is that people can stop buying at any time and you can have plenty of choices.
A democratic government is elected every X years and you have a very limited set of choices. It's plenty of time to forget about mistakes and that's too little choice to have accountable candidates.
I don't think most people can stop buying comcast if they want internet, as a counterexample.
I would say this - there's a good argument that our representatives are WAY WAY out of touch, simply because we don't have enough of them. In 1790 there was 1 congressperson per 33,000 people, and now it is per 800,000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_ap...
If you had a congressperson with 1/20th of the constituents, they'd probably pay a lot more attention to you.
Politicians are only accountable as much as they are subject to competitive pressure from other politicians. The same goes for corporations.
Just as you can have a healthy democracy, you can have a healthy, regulated market.
But unlike corporations, you can't really break up the government's monopoly on lawmaking and law enforcement. Governments can be some of the least accountable entities despite elections because they are natural monopolies that regulate themselves.
The accountability goes out the window when the government exerts influences over mass media and the "votes" are made based on a disinformation campaign.
I disagree, I'd rather have my own government decide what is acceptable rather than an American multi national projecting their own rapidly shifting cultural norms.
I think a big part is that the companies doing the censorship are American themselves, and can thus -if need be- be held accountable under American law.
For Europeans this is a lot harder, the companies are still American and mostly project their own cultural norms regarding violence, race, sex, etc, without being accountable to European governments.
If a private party can use their monopoly on the limiting of free speech to control the government how is that any different than those private parties _being_ the government, and by extension enjoying the monopoly on violence?
If a handful of companies can influence the election of a government to such a degree then they would enjoy the best of both worlds: the freedom to censor as they please (because they aren't beholden to 1st Amendment / Free Speech), and monopoly of violence as they control who the government is (who gets more positive coverage in their algorithms, pagerank etc.)
I think a lot of people are worried that companies (Facebook, Twitter, Google) _do_ hold that kind of power over governments, and not just the American government.
> What’s the point of arguing if companies are able to limit free speech in theory when they just did so in practice?
Whether what they actually did is “limiting free speech” or not is, in fact, part of what is in dispute.
Obviously, if one grants the argument that that accurately describes the events that occurred, it becomes indefensible to argue that it is not within the power of corporations to do it. But that is very much not a point of consensus.
True, it might not be a monopoly, or even a duopoly, but I'm not sure it's much better. Do you think if a politician is banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Google they have even a small chance of being elected?
It wouldn't even take all 3. If Google decided to heavily promote pro-Trump articles in their SEO, and heavily downplay pro-Biden articles leading up to the election, do you think it would have gone the way it did? And if not, do you think that's OK?
Of course they can do what they like, it's their platform. And if Biden supporters didn't like it they could boycott and tell everyone to use Bing or DDG. But I'm not sure that's a realistic solution.
I'm not making any strong claims here, I certainly don't know the right answer or if this is as much of a problem as it seems to me. I'm just worried that a handful of companies control a significant amount of the discourse in not just their own countries, but internationally. It might not be a current issue, but I could see it being a future one.
This ignores the ordoliberal[0] perspective, which IMHO deserves som attention if we are discussing the German approach to these questions (which I believe differs/diverges from the principled view of these questions from the anglo-american/common-law PoV)
From my perspective, the real danger is the collaboration of state power and private capital power, because it inevitably leads to the death of any notion of democracy. Whether that happens in free market/social democratic/neoliberal/ordoliberal societies is irrelevant, when the result is a consolidation of the power of private capital and state mandated power. (We used to call this corruption, but the term feels irrelevant.)
I believe a healthy society (under our current paradigms) deeply requires an antagonistic relationship between state power and private capital.
(Just to be clear, I believe these are emergent issues, and I absolutely do not claim to possess any complete truth)
Ah yes, let’s just let open Holocaust-denial or Hitler-worshipping or white supremacy all be absolutely fine. Or what about doxxing or a focused effort to destroy a business online through lies and slander, on a social network that doesn’t have any rules? Is that allowed? It’s my free speech to tell lies of course.
Free speech without restrictions is a silly liberal dream that never works. It’s like capitalism in that it holds it own downfall within its internal logic.
You do realise that Hitler was the government when all the atrocities were committed? The road to hell is paved with best intentions (of the supporters of these governments)
For me the challenge becomes "which government?" Should 200 different national governments be able to decide how the platform is run in their country? Should different sub-regions be able to decide?
Makes me wonder what global governance would look like for this or even platform-specific governance could be. Maybe there's a play for users of specific platforms to unite and demand more representation over how a platform is governed, as workers united for more representation in companies.
