Nothing is stopping you from creating your own libre alternative to these solutions, just as if you want to walk into a place without a shirt or shoes you can, as long as you own it.
Section 230 was implemented to ALLOW for moderation, not to prevent it.
If platform published their content rules and publicly demonstrated how they apply them equally I doubt we would be having any of these discussions.
Instead we have "moderation" that always favors one political line of thought. That's not moderation, that's editorial control and at that point I think it's more than reasonable to argue you have crossed the threshold from platform to publisher.
Usenet survived for decades and still does without some central bureaucracy lording over it. Have an issue with them? Plonk!
Freaking snowflakes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and this is the slipperiest road yet. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Remember when that used to be a catch phrase of the left? What a bizzaro time we live in.
They do (or at least the publishing part). Who decides whether or not they apply them "equally"? The government? Like you want the Trump administration to have decision making power over whether or not Twitter is fairly moderating content?
> Instead we have "moderation" that always favors one political line of thought.
This is certainly a claim made. I view things differently: right-wing media and pundits have been treated with kid gloves for decades now. The shift to treating them "fairly" is viewed as discrimination, much the same way as certain groups on the far right have viewed every other example of "objective" fair treatment as discrimination, since they ultimately feel as though they've lost some privilege.
You may view things differently, but you're clearly biased (and perhaps, so am I). So why should I trust you to make objective decisions here?
Either way it is a slippery slope.
It's when they are vague and applied unevenly that the line between platform and publisher gets crossed.
For example, I find it fascinating that Twitter doesn't put warnings on the leader of Iran's racist tweets (or even bans him for clear TOS violations) but peppers the US presidents tweets with warnings. With a straight face you are going to tell me that politics has nothing to do with it?
“There has been an increased amount of criticism of the platforms. But it’s not accurate. There’s a First Amendment distinction between publishers and distributors. But since Section 230’s been in place, that’s not really been an issue for the internet.”
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...
I'm waiting for people to go after someone's electric company.
Just because there are network effects at play does not for a second mean that a private business loses the right to regulate who it has as a customer.
your analogy doesn't even begin to apply. I can go to another mall if I'm banned. there isn't another dominant social network. Getting banned from Facebook and Twitter is like having your phone line cut off by Ma Bell in 1950, not like getting kicked out of a mall you incredible dunce
Therefore you wouldn't see any problem with regulations or laws that restrict the rights of companies to enact this sort of policy that Mailchimp is.
In other words, someone posting dangerous content could threaten my deliverability, even though I didn’t do anything. Therefore, if I purchase services from an email provider, I will want them to moderate it.
You also solve the coordination problem by making all businesses accept minority customers. Southern racists couldn’t boycott all businesses. Likewise, left wing activists can’t boycott you for allowing conservative speech if all of your competitors also have to allow it.
Stop comparing conservative speech to people who were actually oppressed because a large number of people want to use services that have someone moderating the content. It’s offensive.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...