I have a genuine non shill question. How do you feel about the government making efforts to free up censorship of social media companies? Even though socials are privately owned, the internet is the new public square. Do you think that government should prevent socials from silencing facts or opinions? Where is the government’s role in this?
Please be frank. If you think this is bad because public squares are a detriment to communism, please state so.
It depends on: what government? What kind of censorship? For what purpose? Obviously we oppose censorship by bourgeois capitalist states, not least because it is first and foremost aimed at leftists.
What?
Asher Williams
I'd say current event, Trump regulating socials so they are more open and prevent algorithms and staff from shadowbanning and dropping certain issues from trends.
Chase Roberts
Well it sounds well and good, more power to him. Though I doubt he will be able to pull it off, neither will it make our positions any better. Ultimately he would rather make Google prioritize news by Republican corporate backers instead of Democratic corporate backers
Jaxson Martin
ideal solution for social media for my take would be making them independent trusts. that is, run on a public-service ish model with a clear mission statement, without private shareholders to answer to or anything, as a public service, but not owned by the state. (though possibly in part funded by it and probably subject to the same constitutional protections of free speech and so on.)
that's thinking in very socdem (i.e. not communist) terms though.
would support banning algorithmic censorship with one condition: it must also prevent artificially promoting content.
Dominic Williams
We should have state-funded state-run public forums and internet utilities of all kinds, and they should be integral to the political platform of a Socialist Party but I don't feel the need to set standards for the corporate internet because the public should seek privacy and freedom on their own.
Carter Edwards
interesting. I see two avenues he can go. One is deem antitrust and break up the companies, or two do what I said in OP and determine internet as a forum just like a building. For example, while im in Macy's (sorry gommies) I can still be a race realist, but while im in facebook, I can't.
really really interesting. if I was from your point of view, that would concern me as I would not want fascists to trend in any sense.
bern supporters and Zig Forums amazes me in the parallels of issues between the_donald. Both sides have problems with the same issues, the solutions are just completely different. soft dems are just terrible though, as are boomer neocons.
we have more in common than we admit
Liam Hughes
No you can't, you can be physically removed from any private diner, shop or mall for saying uncouth and bad-vibes generating thoughts, be they unchristian, unamerican, or cishet mansplaining. You only can't for: religion (long time practice), race (medium term practice) and sexual orientation (not fully established)
Parker Davis
Since you're a right-wing capitalist, shouldn't you support the "right" of corporations like Facebook and Google to limit what people can say while using their services? Honest question.
Levi Allen
I think he means capitalist in the Zig Forums sense of "anything not communist"/still in the current mode of production, not that he's some autistic lolberg who believes private property is the only possible source of morality, otherwise he wouldn't post this thread.
