It's not an easy balance, especially for ppl like Elon, whose intentions are to make money. If the advertisers get to dictate the content (we won't advertise IF u have X, Y, Z), then the only options are to censor the things they don't like so they'll keep advertising, ignore them & see if they're bluffing, & go find new advertisers. The…
It's not an easy balance, especially for ppl like Elon, whose intentions are to make money. If the advertisers get to dictate the content (we won't advertise IF u have X, Y, Z), then the only options are to censor the things they don't like so they'll keep advertising, ignore them & see if they're bluffing, & go find new advertisers. The problem w the latter is the new advertisers won't have as much money.
I think there should be a designated digital public square, where everything is allowed except illegal speech, then the private companies can do whatever they want, & censor to their heart's content. The problem is, the left would still find a way to censor, because they have federal agencies as partisan attack dogs, so they can declare speech they disagree with as harmful, illegal (by fiat/executive order), the speech would be removed, & it would take 4 or 5 years to make it's way through the courts, in order for the SCOTUS to resolve it. By then, whatever populist speech patterns they banned would be useless (for example memes, by & large, work by sarcasm of the zeitgeist. Once the public climate has changed, which it does fast, most aren't relevant anymore. A "u had to be there" type thing).
Another problem is making sure enough people would participate in a system recognized by the government as a town square, because skeptics, or most people really, don't want the government (who's notorious for overreach & violation of privacy) to have their personal account information, because they will no doubt use it to go around Congress (& make things like a national gun registration database, which many think is illegal & can't pass Congress, etc, etc).
So, it's not an easy task. Twitter already has a built-in user base, so i understand considering it the de facto public square, but there's still lots of problems that need to be ironed out, IMO (like whoever owning it getting to ban whoever they want, for any reason they want, because it's legally a private company, regardless of which side they're on. I disagree with banning people for legal speech, regardless of whether i agree with the speech. Speech everyone agrees with doesn't need protection from anyone, lol).
It's not an easy balance, especially for ppl like Elon, whose intentions are to make money. If the advertisers get to dictate the content (we won't advertise IF u have X, Y, Z), then the only options are to censor the things they don't like so they'll keep advertising, ignore them & see if they're bluffing, & go find new advertisers. The problem w the latter is the new advertisers won't have as much money.
I think there should be a designated digital public square, where everything is allowed except illegal speech, then the private companies can do whatever they want, & censor to their heart's content. The problem is, the left would still find a way to censor, because they have federal agencies as partisan attack dogs, so they can declare speech they disagree with as harmful, illegal (by fiat/executive order), the speech would be removed, & it would take 4 or 5 years to make it's way through the courts, in order for the SCOTUS to resolve it. By then, whatever populist speech patterns they banned would be useless (for example memes, by & large, work by sarcasm of the zeitgeist. Once the public climate has changed, which it does fast, most aren't relevant anymore. A "u had to be there" type thing).
Another problem is making sure enough people would participate in a system recognized by the government as a town square, because skeptics, or most people really, don't want the government (who's notorious for overreach & violation of privacy) to have their personal account information, because they will no doubt use it to go around Congress (& make things like a national gun registration database, which many think is illegal & can't pass Congress, etc, etc).
So, it's not an easy task. Twitter already has a built-in user base, so i understand considering it the de facto public square, but there's still lots of problems that need to be ironed out, IMO (like whoever owning it getting to ban whoever they want, for any reason they want, because it's legally a private company, regardless of which side they're on. I disagree with banning people for legal speech, regardless of whether i agree with the speech. Speech everyone agrees with doesn't need protection from anyone, lol).