A platform can define what harm is. We can see what definition is, and we can choose to use a particular platform or not.

While I agree with you, Tim Pool (as well as many others) made a good point recently about the fact that when platforms are as powerful as being able to influence elections, maybe allowing them to define the structure within which we communicate might not be a good idea.

I am a free market guy, so for me these companies ought to have the right to determine the parameters within which their users can operate on their service. However, with things such as EUCD and GDPR rules, introducing competitors to the established networks becomes harder and harder for each day, which only benefits the existing platforms. So when the platforms are biased and competition is hindered by red-tape and regulations, we cannot expect alternatives to popup that can compete with said entities.

All of this leads me to believe that things will only get worse as I don´t see a way out of this clusterfuck we´re in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ

Edit: why the downvotes? :S

Unfortunately, most of the time we aren't privy to their definitions. If they publish them publically to a literal extent then they MIGHT actually have to follow them! No company wants to have to follow their own rules, it's a Schrodinger situation.

Not to mention that as we've seen with Twitter the rules don't really matter. The name of the game is selective enforcement and zero accountability because you can always blame the algo/users for not reporting enough.

Isn't selective enforcement kind of inevitable? There is no algorithm that can follow code of conduct 'rules' perfectly. You are always going to be able to find instances where the rules aren't applied perfectly.

* If they publish them publically to a literal extent then they MIGHT actually have to follow them! *

Conversely, to the extent that they are public and transparent (eg I think twitchy is pretty specific about feedback for content removal) people will game that information and either refine their content to fit within the letter of the ToS while spreading it as widely as possible, or seek to litigate the decisions depending on what's least costly.

Well, read the top comment in this dicussion: They're not saying "if FB wants to kick arbitrary people including me I'm fine with that", they use "bigots" and "anti-vaxxers" as examples. Another important element is a constant refrain of "but platforms with no restrictions end up as a cesspool".

> We can see what definition is

"seeing the definition" just means seeing some flowery language which may or may not be the full truth when it comes to individual cases. If people don't pay attention to the fact that they don't actually know, and don't seem to care, who exactly is booted off these platforms and why, exactly and on a case by case basis, and just take the word of platforms like FB or Twitter for it, they're in for a rude awakening when they end up on the wrong end of it themselves.

The amazing achievement of not being a racist or an anti-vaxxer doesn't make up for the failure to clearly speak out against the hypocrisy of a company that on the hand hand fights democracies that want to protect citizens against tracking [0], to mention just one color in the spectrum of shit they're up to, while on the other hand bragging about how they're not evil. Facebook can do what they want, people and use their "services" all they want, and roll their eyes about "outrage over FB" all they want, but then they also need to own it.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19499598