Big tech regulation?

[Paul_Thomson]

@Orygun

Look I get that you don’t agree with FB’s moderation. What do you want to do about it? Ending sec 230 won’t do the trick.

You either make it illegal for platforms to remove material from their sites and to obstruct free access to any info placed on their site, and impose meaningful fines and redress for doing so; or you allow filtering of material by sites but require standards to be applied equally to all views only on the basis of transgressions of clearly defined legally prohibited behaviours, with meaningful fines and redress for not doing so.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Paul_Thomson

You either make it illegal for platforms to remove material from their sites and to obstruct free access to any info placed on their site, and impose meaningful fines and redress for doing so;

Not only would this be staggering government interference into the property rights of social media, it would result in every forum, message board and service being unusable due to spam and advertising.

@Paul_Thomson

or you allow filtering of material by sites but require standards to be applied equally to all views only on the basis of transgressions of clearly defined legally prohibited behaviours, with meaningful fines and redress for not doing so.

Again, why should the government have the power to tell a private company what they can or cannot remove?

[Paul_Thomson]

@TheDoctorIsIn

Again, why should the government have the power to tell a private company what they can or cannot remove?

Because the US ethos is one of a free market driving development and innovation: in this case of ideas. Ideas do not compete when A is published only to bubble A audiences and B is published only to bubble B audiences. An option must be chosen, and my first option is less workable. The extant option is corrupt giving too much power to the owners of the platforms to create unchallenged, plausible but untrue, politically manipulative narratives.

[DougBH]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@DougBH

I assume you think a lot. Fine, and yet they are doing ok without 230 protection, so obviously it is not needed.

Fox is protected under Section 230, as well.

If so, I assume this is limited to the comments section.

The flaw in 230 is that it removes liability from the provider for what a third party says, but if a provider announces that they are removing “misinformation” from the published comment, they are basically making a statement of their own that what is allowed to be stated is true.

The third party statement becomes the statement of the provider at that point.

[WorldWatcher]

@Paul_Thomson

@Orygun

Look I get that you don’t agree with FB’s moderation. What do you want to do about it? Ending sec 230 won’t do the trick.

You either make it illegal for platforms to remove material from their sites and to obstruct free access to any info placed on their site, and impose meaningful fines and redress for doing so; or you allow filtering of material by sites but require standards to be applied equally to all views only on the basis of transgressions of clearly defined legally prohibited behaviours, with meaningful fines and redress for not doing so.

@WuWei

So your opinion on this?

Platforms (FACETWITINSTAWHAT, comments on news site, and political discussion boards) only being able to take action on legally prohibited behaviors?

(I am against this and support rights of property for privately owned platforms to conduct their site as they want.)

WW

[WuWei]

Generally, it’s private sector, so they should be able to run it they they want.

The problem is they have corrupted the line. If you’re going to get in bed with gov and act like the public sector, shouldn’t you have to follow those rules.

I see this as a problem with regulatory socialism.

Thanks for asking.

[Guntsu]

@TommyLucchese

Social media didn’t make people like this. It just made them easy to hear.

I was thinking the other day, the gaming industry specifically online gaming has been battling “toxicity” since it’s advent long before social media became a “thing”

The best they came up with is filters and mute options.

Social Media is the new TVman only now it’s targeted and curated to the user.

I remember the old days you would hear so and so company battling for the living room…now they are in your pocket listening and tracking everywhere we go.

I agree I think Pandora’s box has been opened it’s GG as they say

[Dem]

I didn’t even think about the gaming community, or teenagers on these platforms.

Remove section 230, will these companies all of sudden become liable for abuse and bullying?

If bullying on social media leads to a suicide, will parents be able to sue Facebook, Microsoft?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

The flaw in 230 is that it removes liability from the provider for what a third party says, but if a provider announces that they are removing “misinformation” from the published comment, they are basically making a statement of their own that what is allowed to be stated is true.

This is essentially true - those “statements” - such as calling something misinformation - aren’t protected by Section 230.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

How can you call for a “free market” while simultaneously arguing for an extreme level of government interference into the free market?

[Paul_Thomson]

@TheDoctorIsIn

How can you call for a “free market” while simultaneously arguing for an extreme level of government interference into the free market

Do you think supporting a free market means a business should be entitled to hire a hitman to take out a competitor? Laws applying to private enterprises is contrary to a free market ?

[gooddad409]

@Cratic3947

it’s just a wag the dog to have even more censorship on line. I remember when the left thought free speech was a good idea.

That’s exactly what it is. A giant step closer to socialism. Venezuela/Soviet style.

[gooddad409]

@Cratic3947

@Orygun

@Cratic3947

Haugen is a dem hack. This is wag the dog for more censorship of politics. Wake up!

Im pretty fascinated by the different takes from conservatives. But yeah- generally I don’t think any legilslation will pass because the main concern for Dems are algorithms that promote hate and divisiveness, and the main issue for Conservatives is to allow for more freedom of expression- essentially allowing for more misinformation to be disseminated.

Perhaps there is room on both sides for increasing privacy rights.

Disinformation like talking about the Wuhan lab as the source of the virus? Or that Hunter Biden’s lap top was real? That kind of disinformation?

Dems against algorithms that promote hate and divisiveness???

Come on Man! That’s what the MSM is all about these days. All directed against conservatives of course.

[Paul_Thomson]

@PurpnGold

@TheDoctorIsIn

Word is getting out that maybe regulating social media is a bad idea for you guys, huh.

They are starting to realize it…slowly but surely.

“Stop FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP!”

(Whistleblower comes out)

“Start FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP”

Giving big tech the power to judge for themselves what should be censored is like Xiden giving the Taliban billions of dollars worth of weaponry to keep order in Afghanistan. The Taliban armoury will only be directed at those opposing Taliban ideology, and in the big tech case, only against those opposing globalist initiatives.

Both actors would ideally be regulated by the citzenry to limit their culling to specific clearly defined transgressions and to ensure they wield sanctions even-handedly. Equal application of the law.

[fallenturtle]

@Paul_Thomson

@PurpnGold

@TheDoctorIsIn

Word is getting out that maybe regulating social media is a bad idea for you guys, huh.

They are starting to realize it…slowly but surely.

“Stop FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP!”

(Whistleblower comes out)

“Start FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP”

Giving big tech the power to judge for themselves what should be censored is like Xiden giving the Taliban billions of dollars worth of weaponry to keep order in Afghanistan. The Taliban armoury will only be directed at those opposing Taliban ideology, and in the big tech case, only against those opposing globalist initiatives.

Both actors would ideally be regulated by the citzenry to limit their culling to specific clearly defined transgressions and to ensure they wield sanctions even-handedly. Equal application of the law.

Why don’t you just not use Facebook or Twitter?

[Paul_Thomson]

@fallenturtle

Why don’t you just not use Facebook or Twitter?

I don’t.

[tnt]

@Paul_Thomson

Giving big tech the power to judge for themselves what should be censored is like Xiden giving the Taliban billions of dollars worth of weaponry to keep order in Afghanistan. The Taliban armoury will only be directed at those opposing Taliban ideology, and in the big tech case, only against those opposing globalist initiatives.

It was trump who negotiated the deal with the Taliban that included us abandoning our bases and equipment.

[fallenturtle]

@Paul_Thomson

@fallenturtle

Why don’t you just not use Facebook or Twitter?

I don’t.

Awesome! Problem solved!

[SixFoot]

Sounding more and more contrived each day.

[Paul_Thomson]

@tnt

@Paul_Thomson

Giving big tech the power to judge for themselves what should be censored is like Xiden giving the Taliban billions of dollars worth of weaponry to keep order in Afghanistan. The Taliban armoury will only be directed at those opposing Taliban ideology, and in the big tech case, only against those opposing globalist initiatives.

It was trump who negotiated the deal with the Taliban that included us abandoning our bases and equipment.

Is that what the CCP is telling you?