Free speech isn't about "having a voice". Free speech is about being sanctioned for having that voice. An 18th century farmer had far less of a voice than a 21st century farmer does today. A 21st century farmer can have global reach - something unthinkable to his 18th century counterpart. People have far more of a voice than when the 1st Amendment was drafted - but there's still no requirement that they be heard.
What is this "it's kind of social media" qualifier? They are competing for the same ad dollars. Youtube has a 70-75% market share in video sharing, and even then it's only if you sub-define it to exclude Twitch, which has 3x the number of gamers streaming. You can share video on Facebook - it just has a different interface. They are direct competitors. Facebook's "social media" marketshare has slipped from in the 70s down to in the 30s.
they should lose protection from liability for content they choose to publish, just like a newspaper.
I don't know what liability protection you are referring to.
That's a case where the market has worked thus far.
When you have market failure, you fix the market. You don't try a whole new paradigm of centralized government control.
But some social media platforms are effective monopolies, as is quite obvious by their market share.
Example?
None of this is speech related, just ordinary trust-busting.
Excellent, so let's trust bust. Let's not allow the trust to function under a new free speech regime. It sounds like maybe we agree here? I get the impression you want to force companies to provide a platform, but here you seem to indicate just having a healthy market is sufficient. If you can't get your idea "out there" in a healthy market, that's not a problem with the market.
But Klan rallies do get parade permits.
Because governments are forced to give them out thanks to the Constitution. That's an entirely different scenario from the (mostly) private venues I'm talking about. It's possible that the Klan could get a city or government-owned venue, but that's only because the government has no choice in the matter (which is a good thing).
The internet is different, and again, would you want a government-run forum?
Why is "the internet different"? You can always inhabit some little dark corner of the internet, just like you can yell at people in Central Park. At least with the internet, you have global reach. And what, exactly, is the difference between a government-run forum and a heavily-regulated private forum?
TV and radio were required to run political ads they disagreed with for most of their existence (don't know if this is still true), specifically to ensure a platform for all.
That is true, but it is a special circumstance. The argument goes that they were taking advantage of a government-granted and enforce monopoly over a public resource, so the government had to go heavy on the regulation. Newspapers have never had this kind of imposition, and the internet is even more open than newspapers.
being a publisher or a platform
I don't understand the logic here. How can Facebook be Facebook if they don't make editorial decisions? How are they a monopoly? Facebook has 20% of the digital ad market. Even mighty Google only has around 40% of the market. It's something of a stretch to even call them a duopoly - and that's just in commercial advertising. If they did hold a monopoly in... something... then we could talk about remedies - but I think I'd prefer remedies which restored competition and enabled a healthy market rather than enacting central planning.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools."
Indeed.
I guess I could argue that, no, they do arrest these people, even in California.
In theory, you are of course correct. In practice, there is no evidence I am aware of that Cloudflare was pressured by the US government.
certain social media corporations are effective monopolies
The inability to have your hate speech published is NOT evidence of an "effective monopoly". It's evidence that the people running social media companies don't want such crap on their platform. That such a desire is nearly universal should not be surprising and does not indicate collusion.
It would be analogous to finding convention space for your Klan rally - good luck. That doesn't mean all of the hotels and large public spaces collude with one another - it just means no one wants to touch such a thing lest they carry the stink around forever.
The First Amendment limits the government's power in this area, but there's nothing about "free speech" specific to the government.
Hopefully it is clear that I was talking about the First Amendment.
Without government, of course you can say whatever you want - but absent a government, you still have no platform handed to you. People can either listen to you or they can turn away.
No one is forcing anyone to listen, after all, but it's important that the platform exist.
I have no idea how you would enforce this without infringing on others' free speech. If I own a newspaper, will you force me to print things I don't want to print? If I run a website, you will force me to publish things that I don't want to publish? How does that not violate the 1st Amendment?
Free speech doesn't mean we have an obligation to make sure that all voices are heard equally - it just means the government can't sanction you for saying stuff. It's not "pretty fucking worthless" because you still can't go to jail for saying something that the government doesn't want to hear. That's worth quite a lot, actually.
Hi, I think you are talking about them tracking you with cookies while we are talking about recordings kept from their voice products. Different topics.
At least with Android, you can log in to Google and see everything that it's ever recorded. If Google is being forthright, this is a pretty good amount of transparency. You correctly have figured out that the only way to opt out is to not use the feature at all. I don't use it on my phone, but I do like the Google Home smart speakers at home and it is quite entertaining to see what it has recorded "accidentally".
I may be a moron, but at least I can read more than two sentences in before replying.
"Sounds familiar to anyone who remembers calling for a cab in pre-Uber times - it sucked."
Maybe you just don't know that "cab" is a synonym for "taxi". That's fine - consider yourself educated.
Tell you what, go ahead and create a new rideshare service that keeps a constant price. Since the number of drivers is fairly static, that means you'll need to have "surge" wait times instead of pricing. Sounds familiar to anyone who remembers calling for a cab in pre-Uber times - it sucked.
You can still wait for the surge to die down and catch an Uber/Lyft at a lower price - probably not any time difference compared to calling a cab and waiting just like the good ol' days. The difference is now you have a choice.
I'd go the other way. With phone number portability, my mobile number is unlikely to change... ever. By contrast, I've had different email addresses for every job, school, and ISP I've ever used. My home address has changed a dozen times. If anything, I'd want the system you propose to tie my email and home address to my unchanging phone number.
Yes, I would like to think that the market will respond appropriately... but unfortunately we seem to be trending towards a duopoly of Samsung-Apple. Couple that with the Android experience thus far being strongly correlated with how closely the OEM sticks with stock Android... in general, the further they stray, the worse the experience. Not a good track record for circumventing Google.
All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin
