s0me0nesmind1
Lifer
- Nov 8, 2012
- 20,828
- 4,777
- 146
I don't get what you are trying to say, there.
I mean, for decades in my country, there have been occasional noises made by the left floating the idea that the overwhelmingly right-wing print-media should be obliged to give 'right of reply' to that left. For example, the suggestion that the relentlessly-conservative Murdoch-press should be obligated to carry responses from the likes of trade-union leaders or Labour politicians after the papers attacked them, say.
At no point did 'conservatives' ever support that idea. Hell, I was never very keen on it myself. There are very obvious problems with the proposal.
But are you saying that privately-owned media outlets should be obligated by the state, to carry opinions of those they, or much of their target market, strongly disagree with? That seems like a dramatic turn-around for a conservative free-marketeer.
Or are you just complaining about people daring to disagree with conservative opinions on social media? E.g. conservatives being forcefully argued against on a forum like this one. That seems to be a common misrepresentation of what 'free speech' means, so maybe that's your point?
The truth is I feel very mixed feelings about that, to be honest. I can't square the circle - on the one hand right-wing posters on here regularly annoy the heck out of me...yet at the same time I absolutely think this forum would be really, really boring if they all quit. I can only conclude from that, that there's part of me that quite likes getting riled-up and aggravated.
I've explained this plenty of times for the legal case against social media for the cushy lifestyle that are able to employ with the protection of Section 230 of the CDA.
You are either a utility - such as a telephone company - where you aren't held liable for the actions that are done over your lines of communication. You are just the person connecting person A to person B. You don't monitor or censor what is happening over the lines of communication, because you aren't liable for it.
OR - You are a publisher. Someone that publishes content, articles, etc... and ARE liable for what is published on your platform.
Why is a TV channel - newspaper website - magazine, etc... potentially liable for what they publish, but social media isn't? Why are they also deemed a utility for protection, but they are able to have teams of thousands of HUMAN people that are determining if content is appropriate in their human eyes or not? (Hint: Unbias humans simply do not exist).