It’s not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

  • @puppy
    link
    English
    51 year ago

    Your analogy about Newspapers isn’t accurate either. The writers of a newspaper are paid by the company and everyone knows that writers execute the newspaper’s agenda. Nothing gets published without review and everything aligns with the company’s vision. Information is one way and readers buy it to consume information. They don’t expect their voice to be heard and the newspaper don’t pretend that the readers have that ability either. This isn’t comparable to a social media site at all.

    • @SexyTimeSasquatch
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      I’m not saying it is identical, there are some key differences, and yet social media platforms are much more like a publishing company than they are a town square. Just because they’re choosing to publish your tweets/posts for free and you’re choosing to create content without pay doesn’t mean it’s not a better analogy than saying their the equivalent of a public space. They’re very clearly not a public space. Using the street analogy, these are storefronts on the street, not the street itself. Again, the Internet itself is the street. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Mastodon, Lemmy, or whatever social media platform, are not the street or the town square. They are not and should not be considered to be public spaces any more than a mall or a Walmart is.

      • @puppy
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Again, the Internet itself is the street.

        Internet is a bunch of compters connected together. Social media sites are a part of the internet. If you say internet itself is a street, then social media sites are part of that street as well. If you’re just thinking about just the supporting infrastructure like cables, routers and switches, a lot of them belong to private companies as well. So you’re talking about a street in a gated community, then you shouldn’t expect any attributes of public space there either. Do you see that diiferentiating social media sites from public spaces just because they are owned by companies fail very quickly when you apply the reasoning consistently? Internet is quickly approaching the status of a basic human right, yet most of it is owned by private companies.

        Do you know what’s equivalent to malls and Walmart on internet? That’s Amazon, eBay and Alibaba.

        What’s the analogy to a real world place people go to express themselves, protest and engage with the broader society? The closest I can think of is a town square.

        So a better analogy in my opinion is,

        1. Cables, satellites, routers and switches: Streets
        2. Online news websites (Vox.com The Verge etc): Newspapers
        3. Streaming video and audio sites: TV and radio
        4. Malls, and supermarkets: Online shopping sites
        5. Social media: Town square