You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit could Massively Profit from Social Media Censorship
How do you figure that private people exercising editorial control over what they publish on their own website is censorship?
To me, that seems like free speech - the freedom to keep servers that you own from publishing things you don't want them to publish.
Am I wrong?
That would be true if there would be a free market for social media platforms, but there isnt, it's an oligopoly between: Facebook, Google (Youtube), Twitter & Reddit.
So pretty much these 4 corporations control the entire mass communication on the internet, and by censoring people they actually influence the public opinion a lot, which is a political risk.
If there would be like 1000 social media platforms and each one having millions of users, separately then your statement would be value, but since there are only 4, we demand free speech, since they control the entire market.
Several arguments can be made for free speech:
*.....etc
You know both a corporation's private property and your private property is valid. We need to find a balance between to make both parties satisfied.
However a corporation in monopoly is no longer a corporation, it's a Government.
That's hogwash. Anyone can start a new one at any time and many do. Have you heard of Ello? Gnu Social? Diaspora? app.net? Steemit?
They don't control anything other than their own websites. Users are free to use any site they wish, now as then.
Just because users actively prefer centralization doesn't mean that these companies are somehow in control of where the users point their eyeballs.