You either fundamentally misunderstand the difference between a communications medium and a publisher, or you are deeply authoritarian and actively seek to blur that distinction in order to control free speech (as do both the Conservatives and Labour).
Again the internet including social media platforms are the equivalent of a telephone or PA system. They are just a device, a tool.
You really need to put your personal agenda against companies such as Facebook, Twitter etc to one side and look at a far bigger picture here.
PS On edit this reads far, far more aggressively than I intend, and I apologise for that. I just can’t find the right language to make the basic points, which I believe to be true, and turn it down a notch!
Yes, a lot of what you wrote simply comes across as "go for the man, not the ball". I'd suggest this shows a weakness in the basis of your argument and views.
The relevant companies have *already* implicitly accepted that they have a role in removing harmful content, etc. They'vre accepted a need to moderate and remove content.
So even *they* show signs of being aware that their old defence of "nothing to do with me, guv" no longer washes. Alas, they seem to regard this as a token activity, and given their actual resources, do very little and fail to stem the sheer scale of the problems then facilitate for money.
I have no 'personal agenda' with the companies as I haven't ever used them. I also happily accept they play a valuable role in many ways by connecting people for *positive* communications - e.g. to help undermine dictatorships, etc.
But doing good doesn't excuse also enabling bad and failing to deal with that when you clearly have the ability to bring vast resources to bear on that distinction.
Nor can we as societies be 'a bit pregnant'. If we have rules governing slander, threats, etc, for what appears in newspapers, books, on stage, in speeches, etc. Then it makes sense to have equivalent ones for online discource. The real question there is a practical one. How to bring those rules to bear when the process is provided by someone outwith your state.
To my mind the best way is probably though their wallets. i.e. if we as a society decide some of what they enable is objectionable we should be able to take away some of the income they derive from out society. In practice that may mean dealing with those in-country who fund the adverts, etc. i.e. impact the revenue stream for the eyeballs.
In general I don't care what kind of badge someone wears or if it says "politician", or "businessman" or "billionaire geek". Nor between the 'letters' page of a newspaper and 'social media'.
The same standards should be applied to when they do what we regard as good and what they do that does harm. And the more capable/wealthy they are as a result of those actions, the more we should expect in terms of dealing with the problems.
In any civilised society the "untrammled right to swing your fist" ends just before it hits someone else's nose. Violate that, and you need a good reason which can then be judged according to law, etc.
No system is perfect, but that doesn't excuse not bothering.
cf #1973 -> You, Tony, remove objectionable items here. These big media companies have vast resources, they can and should do the equivalent. If not, then in the end the Law *will* step in, like it or not.
