So you say, but I don't think social media companies are benign or have the best interest of visitors at heart. If anything they make it far easier to identify users who are susceptible to propaganda and feed it to them in bulk.

▲

taco_emoji 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Then the social media companies need regulation.

	▲	NickC25 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Too bad, they have too much money to bribe lawmakers with. Zuck is worth a quarter trillion dollars, and he ain't in a rush to give up so much as a penny of that if it doesn't fufill his goals of enriching himself further.
	▲	logicchains 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Giving the state the power to regulate social media will just allow the the state to censor and control information again like it does with traditional media.
	▲	gregbot 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Exactly. The fact that western governments have held that the corporations themselves have a free speech right to control your feed and speech but you do not have a free speech right to choose what the algorithm feeds you or what you say is absolutely stunning and reveals that capitalism is more powerful than liberalism in the west.

▲

gregbot 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

i totally agree, but the solution to corporate manipulation of our feed is to regulate social media so that the first amendment applies to the algorithm so the companies themselves dont have the power to push their own propaganda. People should decide for themselves what perspectives they agree with online.

	▲	tzs 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> i totally agree, but the solution to corporate manipulation of our feed is to regulate social media so that the first amendment applies to the algorithm so the companies themselves dont have the power to push their own propaganda. What does it mean for the 1st to apply to the algorithm? For example, who would have to do what in order to violate the algorithm's 1st amendment rights?