> Free speech is freedom from the government not allowing citizens to publicly speak dissenting opinions.
This made sense a few years ago when realistically government was the only historical large consumer and regulator of speech.
Now that we have another large entity, we need to have a think about what to do. This isn't an endorsement or rebuke of current rules, just a statement that we need to have a debate about this that incorporates what we've learned.
Saying FB, Twitter, YouTube etc are arbitrators of free speech ignores all the other channels that are still available. Talk Radio, news letters, personal blogs, TV, newspapers, etc etc.
If we don’t want say Google delisting websites because their the arbitrators of true fine, but saying any and all channels need to have everything is excessive. Misinformation is always going to be more plentiful than the truth simply because their are vastly more ways to be wrong than correct. Traditional media filtered out a lot of crap and perhaps social media should as well. Truly open channels just end up looking like 4chan.
This made sense a few years ago when realistically government was the only historical large consumer and regulator of speech.
Now that we have another large entity, we need to have a think about what to do. This isn't an endorsement or rebuke of current rules, just a statement that we need to have a debate about this that incorporates what we've learned.