←back to thread

707 points patd | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Traster ◴[] No.23322571[source]
I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway:

There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-reach and almost unachievable to have both perfect free speech on these platforms and actually run them as a viable business.

But let's lay that aside, those people who make the argument claim to be adhering to an even stronger dedication to free speech. Surely, it's clear here that having the actual head of the US government threatening to shut down private companies for how they choose to manage their platforms is a far more disturbing and direct threat against free speech even in the narrowest sense.

replies(42): >>23322601 #>>23322660 #>>23322889 #>>23322983 #>>23323095 #>>23323271 #>>23325355 #>>23327443 #>>23327459 #>>23327625 #>>23327899 #>>23327986 #>>23328982 #>>23329094 #>>23329143 #>>23329230 #>>23329237 #>>23329375 #>>23329616 #>>23329658 #>>23329911 #>>23330257 #>>23330267 #>>23330422 #>>23330438 #>>23330441 #>>23331115 #>>23331430 #>>23331436 #>>23331462 #>>23331469 #>>23331944 #>>23332090 #>>23332213 #>>23332505 #>>23332858 #>>23332905 #>>23332934 #>>23332983 #>>23333360 #>>23341099 #>>23346876 #
Andrew_Quentin ◴[] No.23332213[source]
Twitter is not a private company, it's a publicly tradable company that can technically even fully be owned by the Chinese government itself through perfectly legally buying their shares on the open market.

You don't see a problem here?

replies(2): >>23332240 #>>23332333 #
ClumsyPilot ◴[] No.23332240[source]
Are you saying public company is worse? At least they are reporting their ownership.
replies(1): >>23332381 #
1. Andrew_Quentin ◴[] No.23332381[source]
I'm saying there are laws against foreign interference in domestic politics for obvious reasons, so if some foreign government for example - which can openly buy Twitter stocks as there is no legal restriction and can do so either directly or like with Reddit indirectly by getting Tencent to buy it off - is moderating the speech of the president, then there's a big problem.
replies(1): >>23335327 #
2. ClumsyPilot ◴[] No.23335327[source]
But what if you turn that argument around - a US owned company is dominating media pandscape of other countries, and gets to decide who gets a loudspeaker and who does not. Is thay foreign interference?