Once access to a private platform becomes a requirement for visibility and success, does the platform have an obligation that goes beyond its own financial interests?
I believe so. I actually think the government needs to enforce the 1st Amendment on all of these monopolistic speech platforms. A lot of people are, rightfully so, fearful of the government censoring them, but then turn a blind eye to corporations being their overlord. I want neither. It’s why the presidents of the progressive era, Teddy Roosevelt mainly and Taft to a degree, broke up all those trusts and monopolies that were making life intolerable for most Americans. Wilson even nationalized the railroads. Conservatives struggle a lot with this argument because they simultaneously want to proclaim that they’re somehow victims of censorship when their worldview allows for the corporate overlords to censor them.
Also, to be clear I was talking about the people that want to censor the game or have it removed but they don’t care about gun control.
The government cannot and should not enforce the 1st Amendment on private parties. That itself would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would be no different than forcing book publishers to print books they’re opposed to. The publishers themselves have a freedom of expression that encompasses the works they publish and choose not to publish.
I agree with your book publisher example, but imagine if there was only one book publisher with any kind of audience. That’s essentially what Youtube is, or Facebook. And book publishing is totally different. That actually requires printing copies and advertising. Youtube and Facebook and Twitter are just platforms.
Imagine if there were only one book publisher. The best thing is to go start your own publishing company. Not force that company to print what you want them to. And what do you mean by “just platforms”?
Obviously no one can start a competing Youtube at this point. Any such attempt would be delusional. I mean they’re just platforms because they’re in no way obligated to do anything other than be a platform for the videos or the speech. They’re not responsible for advertising a video or producing or printing anything like a publisher would be.
It’s certainly possible to start a competitor to YouTube. The idea that it’s YouTube only and forever is delusional.
Because blip.tv (which is now defunct) was so popular compared to Youtube. Or like Google+ is so popular compared to Facebook.
Ridiculous. You’re completely ignoring the effect market share can have on the success of a competing product or service. It’s like saying someone should build their own app store if they don’t like Google Play or Apple’s App Store. As though new customers would just come out of the woodwork when they’ve already invested so much in the other service.
To acknowledge that Steam or Youtube have basically cornered the market on their respective services is not delusional. There are competitors to Steam. But Steam is still by far the biggest dog in the yard, and for good reason. No one is saying “only and forever”, but to assume they don’t have near-monopolistic influences on their markets is rather foolish.