I hope conservatives that use the "social media is a public square" argument will finally approach logical consistency and call for a publicly-owned, federally managed Mastodon site that upholds all the free speech they think people should have.
I think morally, social media platforms should work to stomp out nation-state disinformation campaigns, tell professional trolls to fuck off, and can spam and illegal content. But as opposed to you, I'm not convinced they should be legally required to do anything but the last item on that list.
> If someone wants to create platform as a service for others, that platform should empower the users it serves to find and engage with the content they want and block/ignore what they aren't interested in.
If someone wants to create a platform as a service for others, they can do whatever the hell they want.
> I hope conservatives that use the "social media is a public square" argument will finally approach logical consistency and call for a publicly-owned, federally managed Mastodon site that upholds all the free speech they think people should have.
Not a conservative, but I support free speech and I'd definitely like such an instance. What point are you trying to make?
The stereotypical conservative supports the right of businesses to do pretty much whatever the hell they want, but gets mad when Twitter or Facebook tries to moderate disinformation and hate speech. But they also hate government being useful or providing public services to anyone, so they would likely oppose a government-funded "public square" platform. And surely, they would be upset when that platform inevitably has to moderate hate speech and veiled threats and trolls, who would then have even more credence to complain about "censorship" since the government would be doing it, causing even more shit.
Basically, I am saying conservatives have conflicting views on the rights of businesses to conduct themselves when they try to say Twitter must let them say nazis are cool and vaccines don't work.
> think morally, social media platforms should work to stomp out nation-state disinformation campaigns, tell professional trolls to fuck off,
If you think about this for a bit you'll realize how impossible this actually is. The professional chaos monkeys are going to play both sides so you always loose.
I think morally, social media platforms should work to stomp out nation-state disinformation campaigns, tell professional trolls to fuck off, and can spam and illegal content. But as opposed to you, I'm not convinced they should be legally required to do anything but the last item on that list.
> If someone wants to create platform as a service for others, that platform should empower the users it serves to find and engage with the content they want and block/ignore what they aren't interested in.
If someone wants to create a platform as a service for others, they can do whatever the hell they want.