Last month there was a lot of news about of tech companies acting in concert to ban Parler. It will be interesting to see how this ends up for all concerned. Commonsense says that tech companies cannot be the arbiters of free speech. For them to presume that they can decide what to allow and what to curtail seems over-stepping of authority. The argument about boundary of responsibilities can arise. Are they required to police content that rides on their platforms. Are they supposed to do that only if they stand to profit or not from said content. As this author says:
Private companies or not, Facebook, Twitter and the rest face exactly the same problems a governmental agency would face in establishing consistent, principled — and universally accepted — criteria for what to allow and what to forbid. Not even 21st-century artificial intelligence can succeed where Supreme Court justices have tried, and failed, for decades.
Such decisions are bound to invoke mixed reactions. Some among those who hate it also have the power to spend or withhold money on big tech demonstrate where they stand on the issue. This may not apply to the average consumer of services that these companies provide but there are corporate buyers who can express displeasure in tangible ways.
An unexpected benefit would be the breaking up of the online public squares - there is no need for two platforms to be the predominant option for the whole world. There should be places for people to gather online that have the vibe and comfort of a small coffee shop that only exists in one's home town and is owned by the same family for three generations. There could be a venue for people of like mind to gather without bothering those who do not agree with them.
Comments