I don't see how the heck my website is a public square but my home or café isn't, this argument sounds self-contradictory
The reason it is (not just seems) different is because of the scope. A message on a chalkboard cannot reach millions of people (without the internet), but it can on a website.
That by itself distorts the public/private argument, but we as a society aren’t sure how or to what extent yet.
These lawsuits are the second step (the first step was arguing about it in public) of figuring that out.
I honestly don't think it distorts the public/private argument, any more than MacDonald's serving billions of customers distorts the question of whether it's a private corporation or whether its scale transforms it into a public service.
But the inevitable endgame of this is going to be the government regulating all speech on the internet, and most of the internet no longer allowing any kind of user content, and I don't think the free speech absolutists so willing to throw the baby of free speech out with the bathwater of consequence are going to like it.
But all websites? To my knowledge, the only websites people agree on this are Facebook and Twitter. So probably probably not all websites, but that's one of the things that need to be worked out. When does a site reach a scale where it can no longer be treated solely as a private entity? What should happen then? How should we identify those sites? Then what?
There are tons of people who agree with you, tons who don't, and tons in between. But the majority seem to be on the side that things can't stay the way they’ve been. The effects on society over the last 20 years are not good. I haven't seen much disagreement on that. No one can agree on what to do about it though.
McDonald's is an interesting example because there are debates happening there too, but making people fat doesn't have cause the same visceral reaction as interfering with elections.
Which government? This is a global issue. It's going to be a long painful process of screwing up then trying to fix it.
But no one is saying that, because of their scale and cultural influence, they have to be privatized and considered infrastructure.
>Which government?
I mean this is obviously an attempt by the US government to control speech on US web platforms, based on US politics since the election of the last President. The rest of the world seems to have settled the question of whether websites are allowed to moderate content, and it was a settled question in the US until a bit after 2016.
Yes this is US specific, but they’re far from the only ones planning to do something about it. I disagree that this is settled anywhere. We’re still trying to understand what’s been happening.
Yes. When a few corporations dominate anything, they cannot be considered 'private' entities that can do whatever they want anymore. They are infrastructure, and they have to oblige by the democratic rules and regulations like how any large infrastructure company does.
Free speech is no different. After consolidating a majority of the social space and literally gaining the power to set the public discourse, no company can be let to do whatever they want with that power. That would invalidate any concept of free press. Not that current 'free' press is any different and that it does not need a major regulatory crackdown. But it has to start somewhere, and starting from the companies who literally ousted the traditional press from the helm of public discourse should be a good place to start.
>Not that current 'free' press is any different and that it does not need a major regulatory crackdown. But it has to start somewhere (...)
And so the mask slips and the agenda reveals itself. This is not about freedom, it's about control, and this is only the beginning. I wonder where it will end?
Yeah, its not about freedom. Who told you that it was. Society exists only because there is a commonly accepted framework for making a society and keeping it. You cant just do anything you want. Try sh*tting on the road in front of your neighbor's house tomorrow. Try doing it naked. Look how freedom is limited.
That you internalized existing rules and restrictions does not make you any more 'free'.
The difference is that your site has some small non-zero chance of reaching millions in the future, while Twitter, Facebook etc are reaching millions or billions right now. The law doesn't have to work on your potential to reach millions of views, just like how taxes don't work by assuming you might become a trillionaire overnight.
Could you wake up tomorrow to your social media platform having grown to millions of users, yes. Is it a realistic situation that should roadblock regulation? no.
Don't you consider it publishing when they express editorial control over what topics are allowed on their platform, without transparency or accountability of what the forbidden topics are at any given point of time? They also modify the user generated content and add labels and "fact checks" which are prominently displayed.
Social media does, in my view, publish the content they host. It's not like the telephone, where you establish a direct connection to your audience and the mediator gets out of the way. When you post something to social media, there are three separate steps that happen:
1. You send the content to the SM company.
2. The SM company does some kind of processing on the content.
3. The SM company publishes that content (or not) somewhere on their site.
These things happen pretty much instantaneously, but they are still happening. Posting to Social Media is more like writing a Letter to the Editor of the newspaper. They receive the letter, decide whether to include it in the paper, then include it in the paper.
What you permit, you promote.