,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Matt, taking different approach to this as you and I have talked on and off the air about Facebook. I don't see how your argument isn't exactly what Zuckerberg tried to sell us for the last few years: that for him to assert any agency over the platform denied free expression 1/
You've covered Facebook brilliantly and you know that Zuck's argument was, in fact, a form of agency, that by deciding NOT to decide he was in fact making a normative judgment. 2/
So what if a campaign -- a platform -- were to do what Zuck never did: to make a calculated judgment on what constitutes news. Yes, slippery slope I get it. But the slope works the other way too, that to deny any agency means you are not protecting the value of free speech? 3/
Anyway, after that tweet, I couldn't quite get why I disagreed. Sure, a campaign may kick out the NYTimes. They will likely suffer more than you; the market does work. But for conspiracy/lies/not news/foreign ops, why not let a "platform" exert agency? #stillafan 4/4
