[disown]

> And YT deletes content mentioning election fraud, and twitter permanent bans the president, all under the historically totalitarian guise of "safety"

Also, really puts a dent into the anti-free speech argument that "you can go to another platform" argument.

I do love watching all these "tech/social media is evil" crowd here suddenly praising tech/social media and wanting them to have even more control over our lives.

Social media is so evil that we need them to control our lives even more. Wonderful logic that.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

That's a mistatement of what many of us are saying.

I certainly am not advocating that social media companies should have even more control over our lives. I would like them to have less, which presumably happens either because (a) we stop using social media (at least in the current sense) and/or (b) more options for "social media" platforms emerge.

Since (a) is unlikely in the near term, that probably means (b). I don't how Twitter banning anyone (including POTUS) from their platform does anything but encourage that.

I also don't see how "large corporations that have used psychological manipulation and network effects to become really popular must be consider public utilities, despite no law to that effect" really lines up with free speech. Do you believe that the NY Times should be required to print my op-ed's in their online version? How about my comments on their articles?

[disown]

> That's a mistatement of what many of us are saying.

Actually I described you to the tee.

> I certainly am not advocating that social media companies should have even more control over our lives

So you are against censorship or for it?

> Since (a) is unlikely in the near term, that probably means (b). I don't how Twitter banning anyone (including POTUS) from their platform does anything but encourage that.

Except that if tech companies collude together to prevent that. Fine, you say go make your own twitter. They do and then it gets banned from google play/apple store/etc. And down the line it goes. That's my point.

> I also don't see how "large corporations that have used psychological manipulation and network effects to become really popular must be consider public utilities, despite no law to that effect" really lines up with free speech.

Who or what are you quoting? You just plucked a quote out of the ether. That's very dishonest and disingenuous. You almost write like a journalist.

> Do you believe that the NY Times should be required to print my op-ed's in their online version?

Of course not. But then again, they are not a platform, they are publishers. But you already knew that.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I'm against censorship but don't consider what private corporations do with platforms that are not legally subject to public utility style regulation to be censorship.

If you can show collusion, please do. Meanwhile, WTF is with the "app store" concept in the first place? You're complaining that it isn't fair that Apple and Google can block apps from their platforms, even though that's what they've actually done since the arrival of smartphones? Free software advocates (look me up) have been warning about this since day one of the app store. There's nothing new here, other than the dispute of the day involves people's ability to type whatever they want in messages to some platform rather than some other feature that Apple/Google think doesn't fit with their intended platform ecosystems.

I wasn't quoting anyone. The double-quotes were an alternative to using hyphens to create a run-on phrase that attempted to describe how I see some people talking about these corporations.

If I understand your last line correctly, you believe there is some category called "platform" which needs to be treated differently. Are you calling for new laws to define what a platform is? If I create my own "dwitter", will your new laws allow me to have to any say over what people can post to it?