[IntFee588]

Perhaps this is true, but this is all the more reason why giving social media sites the right to police free speech/expression is too much. Public discourse today happens online. The "uhhhh, this is a private venue, they don't owe you a soapbox" rhetoric rings increasingly hollow when we just went through a multiyear period when society collectively forced millions of people to work or go to school over the internet, often through big tech platforms. Telling people who don't like the current state of the mainstream web to find their own platform is like telling people who are unhappy with food prices to simply farm their own crops; it's not technically impossible, but there's more likely to be civil unrest before people start sowing seeds.

It is also very telling that when independent discussion platforms do start to reach critical mass (4chan, voat, wherever else) there is often collusion or pressure to take down their hosting or stop payment processors from working with them.

[kitsunesoba]

The issue I think is the sheer scale of the "soapbox" and level of access to it, which is unprecedented.

It used to be that fringe opinions were expressed on street corners on literal soapboxes and never got much further unless they had a certain level of credence. Now with the likes of Twitter and Facebook, these individuals have a global stage to broadcast to where they'll find a massive audience regardless of how bizzare and unfounded they may be, thanks to the legitimizing effect of the "communities" around these ideas. In the hands of someone charismatic this can be dangerously destablizing to society, because it's the perfect recipe for cultivating a following that believes almost anything imaginable, including ideas which directly conflict with demonstrable reality.

I don't agree with some of the things the internet has collectively decided to clamp down on but I do think it makes sense to not give just anybody the grand stage and spotlight.

[deltarholamda]

>these individuals have a global stage to broadcast to where they'll find a massive audience regardless of how bizzare and unfounded they may be

This is a common fear. But nobody is really worried that some charismatic guy who believes that aliens are secretly draining humans of their precious bodily fluids is going to take over the world.

Those in power are always concerned about maintaining their power. Somebody who shows up and says, "hey, these people in power are saying things that are not true and are engaging in damaging and dangerous practices," well, it's quite easy to cast that person as a Dangerous Individual Who Is Secretly A Lunatic. Everybody has some nutty idea, so you focus on that nutty idea, and presto, you have a bona fide nutcase who can be shut down for "misinformation".

I get the argument. But the practical working aspect of it is it puts great power into the hands of already powerful people. That's fine, if you want to have a technocratic/political aristocracy. If you do not, then there isn't many other options other than open discourse.

[ryandrake]

> This is a common fear. But nobody is really worried that some charismatic guy who believes that aliens are secretly draining humans of their precious bodily fluids is going to take over the world.

I think reasonable people are worried about exactly that. Enraged violent people managed to get a few meters away from a room full of Congresspeople validating an election, in support of their charismatic guy who believes much worse.

Q-Anon has believers currently sitting in Congress, and is predicted to gain more seats this year[1].

1: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-36-qanon-supporters-runn...

[deltarholamda]

>Enraged violent people managed to get a few meters away from a room full of Congresspeople

Enraged violent people rioted and burned cities, and a lot of the same Congresspeople cheered them on.

[zaccusl]

Can you name some specific people cheering the riots and destruction? FYI, there were literally millions of protesters across the US and only a tint fraction caused damage.

The two are not at all equal. A sitting congressperson supporting BLM protests is not the same thing as a sitting congressperson openly encouraging and even participating in overthrowing a free election.

No matter how much the right wants it, the two situations are not even close to being equal.

[deltarholamda]

>Can you name some specific people cheering the riots and destruction?

Kamala Harris encouraged people to donate to the MN bail fund, which was used to bail out rioters.

>No matter how much the right wants it, the two situations are not even close to being equal.

You are correct: the Jan. 6 protests were far less deadly and less damaging than the BLM protests.

[ryandrake]

Both things can be true. I was narrowly addressing your comment that "nobody is really worried" about something that almost actually happened. Indeed, many people are now acutely worried about unhinged conspiracy theorists taking power through a charismatic guy.

[HardlyCurious]

You talk about this danger as if it is new and not proven to have existed prior to the 21st century. You are in conflict with demonstrable reality.

[ok_dad]

It is new, there hasn’t been this much access to free unfiltered information ever. Now, not only can the town crazy rant on a literal soapbox, but they can rant to millions more as well. Your assertion that things are that exact same is laughable.

[JackFr]

Replace “Twitter and Facebook” with “printing press”.

[ta23304]

You're basically advocating government control of social media sites here. At least, that's my only reasonable interpretation for your statement regarding "giving social media sites the right to police free speech / expression". There is no way to accomplish this, unless an enforcement mechanism is put in place where the government tells social media sites exactly what they can and can't police.

Sorry, that is a far more uncomfortable situation, whether you know it or not. Perhaps you are hoping that mainstream social media sites can be forced to allow the type of content found in voat or 4chan. It is equally more likely that a government will, at some point, disallow the content found in voat or 4chan everywhere, if that angle is opened, IMHO. It, of course, will depend on who is in charge.

China, for instance, currently has heavy influence on exactly what kind of content is allowed within social media, complete with a Great Firewall and large armies of censors to enforce this policy. Their social media has been shaped many times based on the whims of Xi Jinping. China heavily moderates gaming and politics, and outright bans things like porn. I doubt a 4chan or voat in Jinping's China would get very far. In the Western Internet, there are big social media sites with various content moderation policies that some people may not like. But alternative sites exist.

At present, social media sites are relatively free to moderate how they wish. A few social media sites have semi-monopoly power, and that is a big issue. The payments processing duopoly is even more of a problem. But don't confuse monopoly power issues with "censorship". The government is not telling what the social media companies to do, in general.

[MartinCron]

The "uhhhh, this is a private venue, they don't owe you a soapbox" rhetoric rings increasingly hollow when we just went through a multiyear period when society collectively forced millions of people to work or go to school over the internet, often through big tech platforms.

That feels like a non-sequitur. People can both use mainstream platforms for work/school and create/find their own platforms for other parts of their life.