I’m completely behind what you’re saying. I wish that “premium access” pricing card were more widely distributed.
I do have one itch, though:
Facebook, for example, for the first time acknowledged that “malicious actors” used Facebook as a platform in the 2016 election campaign “with the intent of harming the reputation of specific political targets.” Of course, we all knew this all along.
Well yes, we did know that all along. Saying bad things about a candidate for public office is called “an election.” Sitting politicians try again and again to pass laws that restrict or even criminalize “malicious actors” who say bad things about sitting politicians within 90 days of an election. Even in liberal democracies.
We all understand the specific problem of hostile attempts to delegitimize a country’s electoral process. I wish Facebook (judging by what you say) deplored international psychological warfare instead of the saying of bad things about Our Leaders.
The ostensible purpose is to throttle malicious bad-thing-saying. Surely Facebook knows it has no technical means of detecting whether one person is “malicious” while another who says the same thing is not. “Malicious actors” finesses the fact that the solution will be to throttle on content.
(Caveat that 100,000 identical postings may be a tipoff, but only may, and I sense that the idea doesn’t stop there.)
Facebook has to trade off among values that may be in conflict: Unrestricted content versus destructive exploitation of the privilege. Facebook gets to choose. But if Facebook feels it is forced to “filter” (let’s be tactful) what its users may express, let’s not pretend it will be a Magic Filter That Only Works On Bad, Bad People.
Kinda weakens the case against letting monopolists decide what you get to see.
I repeat: I appreciate what you’re trying to say. I agree with you. But some ways of saying it are more helpful than others.