Things that can simultaneously be true:
☑️platforms need to take more responsibility for impacts on users & society
☑️regulation is needed to address monopoly dynamics
☑️free expression means platforms have a right to an editorial point of view
☑️platforms need to take more responsibility for impacts on users & society
☑️regulation is needed to address monopoly dynamics
☑️free expression means platforms have a right to an editorial point of view
This matters to musicians, of course, both because we are often reliant on platforms to reach audiences, and because free expression is a core value for music communities.
Free expression doesn’t mean Nazi punk bands have a right to have their music distributed by Bandcamp, for example. And Bandcamp shouldn’t lose any legal protection if they decide to exclude such music from their service.
As scrutiny of digital platforms has increased over the past several years there has been a persistent line of argument that any consideration of platform responsibility or liability reform opens the door to bad reforms for bad reasons (like the new EO).
In fact, the opposite may be true—tech policy establishment’s failure to earlier engage with platform power and remedy failings in the law, in terms of service, and in business models has contributed to an environment where bias allegations can be weaponized.
Rather than use this episode to engage in another round of “defend section 230!” without any nuance, it’d be nice to see folks in tech policy center the voices that were flagging these issues early on. Like musicians, sure, but also folks like @mediajustice and @changeterms.
