Arguments against regulating social media corporations imposing censorship on their platforms tend to call on freedom of companies to make their own rules, however arbitrary. This isn’t reality.

“The threat today is not passivity, but pseudo-activity, the urge to “be active”, to “participate”, to mask the Nothingness of what goes on.”

Slavoj Žižek

Corporations have longevity, resources and reach way so far beyond any individual, their regulation should be considered in the same way state or national government must have legal limits to protect the individual from potential abuse of overwhelming power.

Let’s not conflate the regulation of immortal corporations with individuals. Free speech absolutism must apply to individuals but multinational megacorps like Facebook or YouTube have the potential to be a ‘holocaust’ against libertarian (or any dissenting) content.

What’s more, the censorship can be reduced to an algorithm or subordinated to authoritarian direction that effectively sends content creators into life-changing exile for minor or unknowable transgressions of arbitrary rules; with no way to appeal.

If anything corporations should be regulated AGAINST censorship – typically against those labelled alt-right as a one size fits everyone not towing one of the mainstream tribal lines.

Regulating the corporation is a necessary safeguard to protect individual free speech. As it happens, this includes those voices most likely to have something important to say about freedom.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.