I'm not sure what you mean when you say Dore's been vindicated. If you mean Big Tech is censoring more and more, then yes, that's true and he is correct. But I as I outlined in this sprawling piece, I disagree with two core assumptions, namely that the Internet is a domain of free speech and that these platforms constitute the open public square. Neither is true.
In the acutal public square, people join in by entering the space and communicating: speaking, passing out leaflets, or through gesture. Barring the physical exclusion of people, there are no barriers in the public square. On digital platforms, one can't enter into dialogue or discussion without a device. Not everyone has access to devices, let alone an internet connection -- not to mention access to electricity. On top of that, none of those things are human rights. Should they be? Maybe. If so, then that argument needs to be made and codified into law. But if democracy and participation are the primary concerns, it is quite an oversight to neglect the above problems. I'd go so far to say that such assumptions are inherently anti-democratic because they presume exclusion from the outset without acknowledging it and, in fact, obfuscating it. To me, that is dangerous.
As I outlined in the piece, social media companies do not have to do business with any of us, and they can break ties with us anytime they wish, and there is nothing we can do about it. Is that right? One can argue either way, but to hide behind the facade of unalienable rights in the digital domain is ridiculous. That has never been the case, and it isn't the case now.
To complicate matters further, Dore is now equating social media to the telephone. Did any laws exist mandating that telephone companies do business with people? If not, then the above limits to Dore's logic remain. There is an interesting correlation between the telephone and social media, namely that both can be, and very often are, surveilled. Just how free are these spaces?
If you have access and don't mind being surveilled, then they are totally free. Is that the new defintion of freedom that analogue telegraphy and digital communcation have wrought? If so, then the founders of the U.S., as problematic as they were and remain, may be rolling over in their graves. They might be right to. Peace.
