Should massive corporations be allowed to ban anyone when they have so much public influence

Personaly, i dont care

Im glad if they get massivly fucked up tbh. We have technology wuch as blockchain now, nothing, including highly illegal material, can be removed.

Like dont get me wrong, I think your right but how do we stop and prove they are a publisher?

We cant argue the problem

Here's my proposal. Very large social media sites and tech firms (say, >40% market share, though precise numbers and triggers are debatable) are required to act as a common carrier and cannot discriminate for any reason that's not explicitly illegal (like the phone companies or mail services).

alternatively, we could create a two-type system. You can act as a publisher and curate or do what you want, but become liable for what you host (within takedown limits). Or you can be a platform and obtain immunity from basically everything that's not expressly illegal.

Right now, you can curate *and* be immune.

Removing the ability to curate from everyone is infeasible, impractical and poorly thought out (you would have difficulty running a personal blog for example and the regulators would have to monitor everything on the internet). Simply making everyone liable just opens up the SPLC to sue everyone they don't like into oblivion and would kill the internet as a whole.

We must argue the solution

You'd need new legislation.

The solution is the free market

Giant mega corps being considered common carriers is the best option imo

teh obvious answer to cortez's figure is that she's including undocumented's in it

the solution is to NOT have big tech companies in control of social media

Fuck off with that invisible hand of the market shit

@Beef Taquitos except the solutions exist

its not invisible, we are there

That's the only people who will ever be in control of social media

They just have to be restricted

@Beef Taquitos actualy, no

@Beef Taquitos decentralised systems are controlled by nobody

How is it a "free" market if its regulated?

@Cody its not regulated

I mean.

We regulate murder.

Can't be havin that

We have to reign in those who are in control. No we're not gonna have fucking socialized social media

@Redneo That's not true at all. Someone has to maintain those systems. They "own" it in the sense that they can manipulate them.

That's retarded and wouldn't work

You said "The solution is the free market"

@Beef Taquitos socialised? WHat the heck are you on about?

@Beef Taquitos its not retarded, we have it and it does work

So if no regulation led to issue wouldnt we then need to regulate

<:TimThink:482277772497125378>

@Cody there is no issue. We have social media completly free of censorship. Not even illegal stuff will be censored

>decentralized systems
>Not controlled by corporations
>Somehow this isn't socialist though

I thought you centralize shit in socialist systems

But the reason illegal stuff is censored is good

That's literally how socialism works bro

@Beef Taquitos no, its closer to anarchocapitalist

@Cody illegal stuff is NOT censored

It mostly pertains to things like child pornography

But decentralized systems is socialist?