The marketplace of ideas can't work if we let a single entity decide which ideas are or aren't allowed to propagate. We all end up much better off if people are free to spread what those in power consider falsehoods; dealing with the occasional outright falsehood is the price we have to pay.

Google is already deciding which ideas propagate.

It's entirely reasonable for us to ask them not to do a shit job of it.

> I mean, the point of limited liability is not to give investors a path to profit regardless of all other things, it is to encourage investments that are beneficial to society. If it isn't working, we should retink it.

From my understanding, a limited liability company exists to protect the business members and shareholders from legal action of their private persons. I.e. if the business goes under due to a poor product or something, they can't be held personally liable. That doesn't mean they are excused from criminal behavior, they can still be liable for some of that.

However, in either case there is no "benefit to society" clauses. It's simply a legal construct to protect people. In this case, Google did what they did... They probably weren't criminals though

Yes, exactly. The point of Limited Liability is not simply to create a guaranteed path to profit (in fact it does no such thing; LLCs go bankrupt every day, and members can lose every penny they have personally invested).

Though there is no explicit "benefit to society" clause, that is the basic rationale for limited liability. It's an incentive to allow members to define the extent of their personal financial exposure. In so doing, they are more willing to invest in businesses, which can produce a net benefit to society (e.g. by employing people, paying taxes, etc.).

Special legal protections that make corporations more efficient aren't natural rights, if they don't come with an overall benefit to society there is no reason to tolerate them.

I think they probably do come with an overall benefit to society, but the idea that giant corporations are going to do what they are going to do is one worth fighting against.

Because the money they make compared to how much content their serve is miniscule, and the only reason it works is scale. So if you want YouTube/Google/Twitter/Facebook to exist, you have to accept best effort algorithmic solutions, otherwise these services are not commercially viable and will cease to exist.

Can we ask these companies to do better? Sure. Can we expect them to be perfect? Not really.

If they are harming society they don't need to exist.

Google could trivially spend $200 million a month on moderation and other editorial functions, they just would rather not.

Net-net, I think Google's benefits outweigh it's issues. Economic analysis basically backs that up.

I admit I haven't run the numbers on Google, but when I looked at YouTube, requiring human minimum wage moderators to review every video would cost billions of dollars a year - more than the entire site's revenue.

So, sure, Google could drop another 200m on moderation, but I don't think that would get you to full moderation, so you still need algorithms in there somewhere.

If you want a moderated service use one. Or build one.

If Google becomes one (which they appear to be doing in some ways) I'll look for something that is more of a raw aggregator.

Google doesn't need to be a social engineer. Nor do many of the others who have decided they know what is "harming society and doesn't need to exist". Like a F*n small town preacher on a crusade to remove a book with dirty words from the library that is.

Indeed, restraining mega-corporations and burning books are exactly the same kinds of thing.

What if the books are made by mega-corporations "just out to make money"?

Attempting to restrict what can be published/viewed by do-gooders who think they know best is hardly a new gig. It just has different flavor now.

Who would moderate the moderators though? Didn't Facebook do this and had a problem with left-wing bias in the news they served?

> Could you explain why it is good for society for Comcast to not give a shit about the content of the data it transmits?

Comcast says they provide you with "the internet". Google says that they're providing you with the news. News is understood to be a factual piece of information by any common measure of understanding, as opposed to rumors and gossip.

It's not really a good comparison. Google purports to promote topical news in several places (search results, news., the Google App).

If Comcast was taking up an editorial function I'd criticize them for doing it poorly too.