Originally Posted by Sini

Originally Posted by rhaikh
What is your proposed law to cover the gap?


I think regulation of social media as a common carrier would be a good start. However, I don't pretend to have a silver bullet for this, and as you correctly pointed out there are nuances and considerations in any attempt. I just know that current situation is quickly deteriorating into illiberality, we already seeing downstream societal effects, and if we do nothing our children will be worse-off than we are.


Again, while I agree that social media companies are the closest we have to an emerging monopoly of speech, there is no monopoly yet, nor can I predict a clear pathway in which one will emerge and necessarily all others fall away. The only one really within striking distance of this is Facebook, and there is truly no compelling reason to use Facebook over the alternatives, especially in the context of speech. In my estimation, alternatives will always exist and a monopoly will never emerge. I believe monopoly is a requirement for regulation of speech. I would be happy to support regulation preventing monopoly.

But we're not really talking about a hypothetical social media monstrosity here, or regulating monopoly, that is the nuanced edge case. We're talking about regulating freedom of expression for ALL OTHER PRIVATE ENTITIES. This is the foundation of your complaint, that some of those entities are exercising free expression in a way you disagree with. You've identified what you believe is a problem, but you have no proposed solution, and it doesn't seem like you intend to ever produce a solution.

[Linked Image]