>"These platforms act like they are potted plants when [in reality] they are curators of user experiences, i.e. the man behind the curtain for everything we can see or hear,”
Nothing incorrect about this statement.
Worse still: if conservatives try to build their own platform (Gab), they are blacklisted across every mainstream developer platform.
I'm glad there is legislation for this.
>would address complaints that the online platforms are deceiving people by picking and choosing what content to allow or block instead of acting as politically neutral platforms or moderators.
The GP said "conservatives try to build their own platform (Gab)".
The parent said "If Gab is a conservative platform".
This is obviously a reasonable way to interpret the GP's sentence. You're also reasonable to disagree with that interpretation, but you're being unreasonably combative when you accuse the parent of putting words in the GP's mouth.
> Gab is an English-language social media platform known for its far-right userbase.[8] The site has been widely described as a "safe haven"[9] for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10]
From Wikipedia.
OP isn’t putting any words in anyone’s mouth. They are referencing a well known fact about this establishment.
And your reasoning for that? Seriously, playing your word-puzzle is so interesting. I learn so much from you about how to present stupid arguments and get over with it.
Please don't do tedious right-leaning tit-for-tats on HN. I mean right-leaning on the page of course. A pyramid of whitespace to the left is a deadly sign.
I didn't mean to, but "if conservatives try to build their own platform " implies some direction to the platform. they would have said "try to build a platform".
Gab is not a "conservative" platform, it's a censorship free platform. It was born out of necessity because twitter was deplatforming normal people who just happen to have different political views.
You can go on Gab and post ultra-leftwing stuff, my little pony stuff, circuit board stuff, open an account to follow latest Antonio Banderas news, whatever you want.
There's no inherent human right to be on Twitter, access its contents or contribute to new content. It is private property and you give away the rights to publish your speech, as per their site policies. So removing content or accounts, is not by law censorship in such an arrangement. That people freely choose to use such arrangements and contribute to others' private property, is questionable.
It's a difference on how you view human rights. There are people that think not allowed access to the Internet human rights violation. I think not being allowed to post on twitter because you have an unpopular opinion is a violation of free speech.
A law can be added to protect this right like the right to be forgotten. We didn't think the right to be forgotten was even a right that is valuable to protect but here we are.
There's no right to a platform for free speech. Maybe there should be, but what that should mean is very difficult to assess. Taking a stab at platforms just because they're popular, isn't necessarily fair game.
Twitter and other social media are moderated in several ways. If your opinion is unpopular, it'll likely not be retweeted much, it may be moderated down by users and moderators, your account might even be banned. Private platforms are private, and regulating them would hinder freedoms to create and maintain diversity of such platforms in the future, ie. hinder competing platforms and innovation.
If such platforms become detrimental to society, that of course need to be addressed in some way. Right to be forgotten is a good example trying to balance out some of the imbalances.
It is. The supreme court saw that banning nudity in theaters, thus banning specific portion of speech in specific places is not infringing first amendment.
You have your freedom to enjoy nude in your home but not in theaters due to city regulations. That doesn't mean that the city is censoring.
I don't treat control of the speech that does cross the lines of the first amendment censorship because if it's not protected by the first amendment it's a violation of the law thus it's an act of justice.
Similarly we don't call stopping robbery and murder censorship of our acts.
This has not been my personal experience when trying to contribute. Also, the founder and original users, in conversation, explicitly labeled it as a place for conservatives. Of course they are careful not to include such language in official user-facing copy.
Nothing incorrect about this statement.
Worse still: if conservatives try to build their own platform (Gab), they are blacklisted across every mainstream developer platform.
I'm glad there is legislation for this.
>would address complaints that the online platforms are deceiving people by picking and choosing what content to allow or block instead of acting as politically neutral platforms or moderators.
This is great news!