The town square analogy would be fine if there was a ‘net neutrality’ for social media: they have to show me everything I follow in chronological order with no filtering or recommendations. As it stands it works more like the letters page in a newspaper, where an editor is deciding what gets included and what doesn’t.
>You can't just ignore the fact that social networking has become the new town square because its inconvenient
That's not a good analogy. Facebook is most used as a semi-private space (akin to an open-house), or as just private (private party with friends). No one moderates that; you don't want to listen to it, you don't join the party (aka follow the person/page).
In a town square, if you scream profanities, harass people, etc, they have to listen because it's the only town square.
I would say that social media sites are more akin to a bar/coffee shop/pub/public house.
While free speech is not protected there by the first amendment (as far as I know), it is still important to value it broadly to create an open atmosphere. I think of the role they played in the run-up to the American Revolution and in organizing workers, and until the dawn of the internet and the plasticized commercialization of my town, the role it played in my social and artistic life.
But what you say is an excellent point about where we are now engaging in public discourse; it has changed drastically, very quickly, and there are significant concerns about free speech now that we all hang out on websites mostly owned by large corporations.
It feels gross to me. Like meeting up at the food court of Wal Mart because every other place in town has put out of business. And the town square is almost dead and gone, both online and in real life.
You can't just ignore the fact that social networking has become the new town square because its inconvenient
reply