Recently there is quite some talk about government regulation and social media. Facebook, Twitter, iTunes, Pinterest all decided to block conservative opinion makers. You can agree with them or not, but if dominant platforms are shutting down certain voices: how free and fair are the elections? This is why this is happening at the moment. To ensure that the Democratic Party will win in November. I just hope the elections are fair, honest and I wish the voters good luck determining the choice.
If the government is overseeing social media we need to consider how the government will deal with the opinions of those who are not agreeing with the government opinions? The plan is easy: to put anti-discrimination measurements on social media. To ensure everyone can go on the networks.
But if we are not going to discriminate people how about the people who disagree with the government? What about the people who have a different opinion? How would the government protect them?
The Christian baker law suite shows the world exactly what will happen if the government enforces the same right laws. You can agree or disagree with the viewpoints. But does the other side have the right to a different opinion than you have?
If the current pressure continues and the Silicon Valley-based social networks surrender it means the death of free speech.
Social networks are not excluding members due to the membership of certain groups. But why is this different than refusing to make a pro-Gay-marriage wedding cake? I’m Jewish. If some Jew-hating group starts a bar I’ll not go there. Hope for them they can survive financially. How is the service if they don’t like you? Why not go to a place where they enjoy you as a customer? Just all have fun. If you know you are not welcome don’t go.
Government oversight is proposed for social media companies because they are in the public domain. This shows a completely different perspective towards freedom. Freedom for you means it is also there for those who oppose you. Unfortunately, this is not guaranteed with government oversight.
Many news commentators argue that the government oversight is much needed. To shutdown certain voices. They fail to notice that, for example, Alex Joens website has around the same web traffic as the CNN website. It is in the 1% of the best-visited websites in the world! This is impressive achievement politicians and governments failed to achieve.
The solution to the problem is relatively easy, and it is exactly the same what bought social media to grow and allowed conservatives to join it: more competition. The solution should be more consumer choice, not some government bureaucrat telling private companies how to deal with there private property.
A rock-solid strategy for business success is to serve an under needed market. Ethnic, political views, religious views. All an easy strategy to achieve business success.
If certain viewpoints are being discriminated against, should they not receive the same protection as other groups? Or will we simply say they should go towards that platform where they are appreciated?
although Facebook is a dominant social platform it is having serious issues. It lacks the teenagers, it lacks the lucrative Chinese markets and fails to get dominant in India. At the same time is European advertisement money heavily going down.
The question we should ask ourselves is the following one: where are free thinkers welcome and can we have a great debate to push humanity forward?