But that is exactly the problem: how do you separate the two? Once someone figures out a way to profit from "free speech" the profit motive takes over and infects the whole system. I don't see any way around that without compromising freedom.
I think banning online advertising causing these sites to charge their users for the service would right a lot of wrongs automatically, when the free market can start to kick in and do it's job.
It makes it so Facebook's product becomes online photo sharing, instead of it's current product which is manipulation and addiction.
Corporations aren't the only ones that advertise. Completely eliminating advertising would restrict speech for both corporations and individuals.
Maybe I want to create a charity and am looking to raise awareness for a fundraising event I am having.
Maybe my dog ran away and I want to get the word out about a monetary reward I am offering for helping to find them.
Maybe I am a touring comedian and I want to advertise my next show.
Maybe I am an amateur photographer and want volunteer subjects to help hone my craft.
The list goes on and on for potential non-corporate uses of advertising. If we want to treat corporate speech and individual speech differently, I think there is a much more important place to start: Citizens United v. FEC.
In all of those cases you can just say what you want to say, you don't need to pay for special treatment to put your message in front of an unwilling audience. Restricting advertising isn't restricting speech, it's restricting the ability to pay for special treatment for your own speech.
> Restricting advertising isn't restricting speech, it's restricting the ability to pay for special treatment for your own speech.
That isn't the way it works in the US. There are some restrictions on advertising, but is fundamentally protected speech in the US and therefore can't be banned outright.
> echo chambers, are the very epitome of lack of free speech [...] since members of echo chambers only hear one argument, echo chambers are radicalizing, and they are radicalizing because they don’t have free speech
Thanks, that's actually a really insightful way of looking at the problem.
Basically, the problem is not free speech. It's the social media drive for addiction.