I don’t know what red state is, a social media company?I am referring to places where none of the content produced is made by the owner. Places where all content is user created.
I made none of those points so I’m not sure where this is all coming from. I understand you want to take your arguments with others and bring them to me but that’s not at all what I’m saying. It seems you are making assumptions that I have these assumptions.
In a way yes, if that website reaches a certain size, say 100 million users or whatever point makes that service more important to businesses than even the phone company. There is blurring of the line between user and employee when many content creators make their entire living from their posts. They get paid by these companies to run ads on their content, so the comparison to an employee is actually a good one. Even if they weren’t paid all the time they created something of value there, a following, and a malicious ban needs to be protected against. Again, say my company gives advice or the phone, and the phone company’s CEO decides my advice is bad and shuts down my service, that would be wrong. You see companies blame say Facebook for being toxic but in reality it is the people on it they should be blaming. They just don’t like what their own friends, who they decided to follow, have to say. Blaming Facebook for toxicity is like finding a guy sitting in their own house and knocking on their door I hear what they have to say then complaining about what they said, and calling the police to make them shut up. All of these sites have blocking tools, or just don’t follow them.
I don’t think that is a common carrier issue. I’m just saying the impact of bans from social media companies, often coordinated among several at once, are more impactful than other companies already listed as common carriers. It’s not like social media is created by these companies, every piece of content shown on the websites was user created and the users deserve protection from malicious and biased actors within the companies.
Exactly. There is much lower hanging fruit but if you ask someone what is more valuable to their business, phone service or social media, many would choose social media.
This is idealistic thinking however there are countless cases where a ban was done by a bad actor or bad algorithm, with the only recourse being a user taking their ban to another platform to complain, and if they gain enough traction on another platform then they get the ban reversed. Unfortunately that only works for large creators while small creators have zero recourse for unjust bans.
That’s partially true. Reddit assigns moderators to your subreddit as well and if you don’t moderate in a way they like will force you to remove certain moderators or even ban your community.
And 100% of people could live without phone companies with no impact to their daily lives, we’ve got internet right? Of course I would be the one defining impact here. You may consider impact to daily lives not substantial, but others see the substantial impact of not being able to reach their family, friends, and customers and the disadvantage that comes with others having that access but you not. It’s not like Facebook actually is making the “social media” you see in your feed, it is 100% carrying social media from users, the same way a phone company aren’t the one making calls.
I think there are two reasons for throttling. A user due to congestion and to prioritize content. Throttling a user for congestion to give a “fair” usage of a shared resource makes perfect sense, but throttling a specific type of content doesn’t. If it needs to be done split one line into 10 equal lines, but don’t say no one can view Netflix or some other service.