|
|
|
|
|
|
by criley2
1754 days ago
|
|
|
I think you misunderstood what you quoted here, because Madison in no way suggests that invididual newspapers should be forced to print opinions they disagree with in the interest of Liberty Instead he argues that there should be a lot of newspapers, to accurately capture the growing audiences and government should not interfere in the growth of private speech It was considered virulently anti-Liberty to use government to force a newspaper to print an opinion they disagree with, and that concept remains true today. If Facebook does not wish to publish violent speech, they don't have to, just like the New York Times editors can choose, just like Fox News can choose, just like every "free speech" newspaper, news channel, or network can choose. This is the essence of free speech, that the government cannot unfairly control your network and tell you that you can no longer choose what to publish. It's sad that people are this against Liberty that they demand government forcibly control networks to allow whatever speech the ruling party currently feels is "free". |
|
|
you can't simply switch off of Facebook the way you would drop a publication you dislike. the network effects keep everyone trapped in. i can't believe we're still having this asinine back-and-forth a full decade after we learned how natural monopolies form via the ordinary dynamics of social graph consolidation.
Metcalfe's law is a thing people, you can read about in on Wikipedia [1] and we can maybe start moving beyond a 1993 understanding of what an internet platform is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law