Free speech issues in the news. Regarding social networks.
-
This is breaking news in the USA, once a lighthouse for those who desired free speech. It is not an endorsement of any person or party.
Wait, I thought the whole idea of the internet was to give everyone an equal, uncensored voice...
-
The 1st amendment'free speech clause only protects citizens from the GOVERNMENT... It's a common misconception and lie people tell that it also applies to businesses and individuals.
But the internet was never 'free'. A TOS generally states what is and is not allowed... If people can't be bothered to read them or have a modicum of civility, they shouldn't be shocked when they're booted from a platform.
-
We should be seriously thinking about other communication options, away from large corporations. I believe that private corporations should not decide who can express themselves and who cannot. The people have the right to listen to the full version and make their own decision, not private companies.
Time to make UNA the greatest! 🙂
-
We have been raising concern over this issue for years! First it was about privacy concerns, but most people just shrugged it off; then it was about security, election meddling and concentration of power by tech giants; now we clearly see a question of freedom of speech. All that is further amplified by "echo-chambers" effect that Facebook, Youtube and Twitter created by "perfecting" their so-called smart-feeds. Whichever side of political debate you may be on, it's hard to deny that if you start leaning in either direction, those sites will push narratives that find most addicting. This feeds division, anger and creates perfect environment for stirring conflict. I honestly believe that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube doesn't really care much whether Hillary Clinton is bad or good, or whether Russia manipulated elections, or whether Trump is good or bad, or whether the BLM is a serious matter or whether Biden stole votes. I honestly think they don't care. What they do care about is making sure that people click more ads, trigger more page views and that they have legal environment allowing them to leverage that activity and invade privacy as much as possible to maximise revenue.
We do not have any political bias. We've been building social software for more than 20 years now, and have seen all kinds of sites - full spectrum. All I can say is that the main cause of the problem is that there're not enough independent communities. If we had many more, fewer people would feel disenfranchised and would be able to express amongst their peers, but at the same time not one network wold be big enough to affect everyone. I hope that one day people would be able to think, vote and discern not based on identity affiliation or party line affinity, but based on reason, ethics and evidence for each issue at hand, free of coercion or deception.
More networks will allow for more choice. Eventually we will settle on trustless protocols for social graph federation and will be able to connect people across all networks without any authority, yet with open source mechanics that uphold freedom, provide safety, maintain resilience and promote unity.
-
Well said Andrew, I agree 100%.