Yes, and we get to hear about it and complain about it and decide if that private company deserves to die as a result.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. That means Meta can kick people off their platform for saying things they don’t like, and it also means that we can collectively decide Meta should cease to exist.
Exactly I think my point’s been misread a bit. I’m not arguing that Meta has no legal right to moderate its own platform.
My point is that we’ve allowed public debate, journalism, and politics to be funnelled through a handful of privately controlled platforms. Then people act surprised when that power is used against someone whose message goes against the grain.
The real irony is whether outlets like The Independent or Dagsavisen will now seriously review their reliance on Meta’s platforms, or whether they’ll complain about the power imbalance while continuing to feed it. My guess is the latter.
You make it sound like Meta has no obligations at all, while their terms and conditions limit their actions as well. For example they can limit the visibility and ban users and posts that violate their community standards. It would be interesting to see what breach was made here.
the only way for private companies to have less power is if governments enact laws that curtail powers, and actually enforce them. The last step is more challenging to do when the humans involved are physically elsewhere on the globe, but it’s not impossible.
Private company did privatised things. Why do you think you have freedom of speech on a private platform?
Yes, and we get to hear about it and complain about it and decide if that private company deserves to die as a result.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. That means Meta can kick people off their platform for saying things they don’t like, and it also means that we can collectively decide Meta should cease to exist.
Exactly I think my point’s been misread a bit. I’m not arguing that Meta has no legal right to moderate its own platform.
My point is that we’ve allowed public debate, journalism, and politics to be funnelled through a handful of privately controlled platforms. Then people act surprised when that power is used against someone whose message goes against the grain.
The real irony is whether outlets like The Independent or Dagsavisen will now seriously review their reliance on Meta’s platforms, or whether they’ll complain about the power imbalance while continuing to feed it. My guess is the latter.
You make it sound like Meta has no obligations at all, while their terms and conditions limit their actions as well. For example they can limit the visibility and ban users and posts that violate their community standards. It would be interesting to see what breach was made here.
No private company should have that much power/control. Meta is a fucking cancer on society.
the only way for private companies to have less power is if governments enact laws that curtail powers, and actually enforce them. The last step is more challenging to do when the humans involved are physically elsewhere on the globe, but it’s not impossible.
ugh, we’ve got corpo bots here now.
They explain their reasoning here in another comment.
Short version: not a corpo bot.
I think he meant his comment as a critique, not approval