6 ms·

Ug, never proposals for education, grants for preferred alternative implementations, publicly funded communication platforms, recognition that the status quo is

Ug, never proposals for education, grants for preferred alternative implementations, publicly funded communication platforms, recognition that the status quo is people's preference, data transparency encouragement (not user transparency...not "who", but "what" wrt internal analytics), enforcement of existing advertisement/fraud/collusion statutes, etc. The first step always has to be more legislation, very sad. I'd argue in the scheme of things, it's not really that broken, and definitely not deserving of the type of fix we're in for. It's funny to watch the masses effectively manipulated into thinking there is effective mass manipulation occurring. I wish they'd just leave things alone personally, but since they won't and everyone is convinced this is a dire problem, I can only hope for restraint.

bofh1d10t 8y ago
Of course they won’t propose those other things (which would require “more legislation” too fwiw). This move reinforces the location of the goal posts that define what is “acceptable discourse.” Along with supporting unfettered corporate control of the means of production. The economy must run on big business and nothing else, amirite? All those other things will undermine them.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> * The first step always has to be more legislation* The first step to each of the things you mentioned is legislation...
- kodablah 8y ago
  Well, to most of them, sure...I guess I wasn't clear. I meant legislation as in regulation and laws, i.e. negative/pessimistic approaches adding more rules/punishments as opposed to positive/optimistic approaches without imposing more restrictions. I personally don't want to see government involvement at all (i.e. any legislation), but I am just dismayed at which legislation since we're sadly past the point, in many people's eyes, of whether there should be any at all.
slg 8y ago
>recognition that the status quo is people's preference...I'd argue in the scheme of things, it's not really that broken Continuing the status quo means the people in power stay in power. It therefore isn't surprising that the people in power prefer preserving the status quo. It also isn't surprising that the people who believe the system is broken and are most against the status quo are those that belong to historically oppressed groups. If you really think the system isn't broken, I suggest you look through the Twitter mentions of politically active famous women, POC, or LGBTQ members. The harassment they receive on a regular basis wouldn't be allowed in the physical world. Why do we allow it in the digital world?
- atomi 8y ago
  As long as it isn't libel/slander or 'fighting words', we do allow it in the physical world. Shouting words at someone is not illegal.
  - slg 8y ago
    We have to separate the words from the action of saying those words. The words on Twitter do sometimes include slander and threats which would make them illegal. However, often the words themselves are perfectly legal. That doesn't mean the action of speaking those words are legal. Using your example, imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7. The words themselves might not be a problem but it doesn't mean they can't be charged with any number of crimes from disturbing the peace to harassment. Social media bots can function in a similar way.
    - atomi 8y ago
      > imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7 People protest all the time in similar ways. Also, you can block people/bots on social media.
      - slg 8y ago
        >People protest all the time in similar ways. Sure, that is why protesters are routinely arrested even though the first amendment exists. >Also, you can block people/bots on social media. The sole responsibility of policing and punishing this behavior should not fall on the victims of this behavior.
skywhopper 8y ago
To be fair, the only power people in Congress have is to pass legislation, so people in Congress will probably propose legislation if people with the power to do the other things you mention don't act to change things. The status quo you favor is most definitely _not_ what the vast majority prefers. And while it's unlikely that Congress will take the right tack here, Facebook and Twitter are at best willfully negligent actors. Their continued unwillingness to sincerely address the problems their platforms have created is shameful at this point. They have tremendous power and are using it poorly and for the wrong purposes. No one is in a better position to change the storyline than they are at this moment.
guscost 8y ago
If it makes you feel any better, nobody really gives a shit about these stupid regulations and nobody is going to stop folks from saying whatever they want here, or anywhere else if here becomes impractical. My personal website (not updated since forever) is my username dot com. And if ICANN turns against free speech there’s always pirate radio, every citizen who even considers “guns to protect us from the guvmint” should get trained as an amateur radio operator first. (By the way, even as a supporter of the Second Amendment it is remarkable that in America one needs a license to operate a radio but not a rifle.)
humlee 8y ago
They will get it wrong till they get it right. The law isn't too different from software. It just deals with a lot more ambiguity. And people are conditioned to think things are black and white. Social media and mainstream media will get three sets of regulation wrt Privacy, Individual Manipulation, Group Manipulation. It doesn't matter which country you pick, the free for all that currently exists is not being tolerated.

bofh1d10t 8y ago

Of course they won’t propose those other things (which would require “more legislation” too fwiw). This move reinforces the location of the goal posts that define what is “acceptable discourse.” Along with supporting unfettered corporate control of the means of production. The economy must run on big business and nothing else, amirite? All those other things will undermine them.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> * The first step always has to be more legislation* The first step to each of the things you mentioned is legislation...

kodablah 8y ago
Well, to most of them, sure...I guess I wasn't clear. I meant legislation as in regulation and laws, i.e. negative/pessimistic approaches adding more rules/punishments as opposed to positive/optimistic approaches without imposing more restrictions. I personally don't want to see government involvement at all (i.e. any legislation), but I am just dismayed at which legislation since we're sadly past the point, in many people's eyes, of whether there should be any at all.

slg 8y ago

>recognition that the status quo is people's preference...I'd argue in the scheme of things, it's not really that broken Continuing the status quo means the people in power stay in power. It therefore isn't surprising that the people in power prefer preserving the status quo. It also isn't surprising that the people who believe the system is broken and are most against the status quo are those that belong to historically oppressed groups. If you really think the system isn't broken, I suggest you look through the Twitter mentions of politically active famous women, POC, or LGBTQ members. The harassment they receive on a regular basis wouldn't be allowed in the physical world. Why do we allow it in the digital world?

atomi 8y ago
As long as it isn't libel/slander or 'fighting words', we do allow it in the physical world. Shouting words at someone is not illegal.
- slg 8y ago
  We have to separate the words from the action of saying those words. The words on Twitter do sometimes include slander and threats which would make them illegal. However, often the words themselves are perfectly legal. That doesn't mean the action of speaking those words are legal. Using your example, imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7. The words themselves might not be a problem but it doesn't mean they can't be charged with any number of crimes from disturbing the peace to harassment. Social media bots can function in a similar way.
  - atomi 8y ago
    > imagine someone standing just outside your property and yelling at you 24/7 People protest all the time in similar ways. Also, you can block people/bots on social media.
    - slg 8y ago
      >People protest all the time in similar ways. Sure, that is why protesters are routinely arrested even though the first amendment exists. >Also, you can block people/bots on social media. The sole responsibility of policing and punishing this behavior should not fall on the victims of this behavior.

skywhopper 8y ago

To be fair, the only power people in Congress have is to pass legislation, so people in Congress will probably propose legislation if people with the power to do the other things you mention don't act to change things. The status quo you favor is most definitely _not_ what the vast majority prefers. And while it's unlikely that Congress will take the right tack here, Facebook and Twitter are at best willfully negligent actors. Their continued unwillingness to sincerely address the problems their platforms have created is shameful at this point. They have tremendous power and are using it poorly and for the wrong purposes. No one is in a better position to change the storyline than they are at this moment.

guscost 8y ago

If it makes you feel any better, nobody really gives a shit about these stupid regulations and nobody is going to stop folks from saying whatever they want here, or anywhere else if here becomes impractical. My personal website (not updated since forever) is my username dot com. And if ICANN turns against free speech there’s always pirate radio, every citizen who even considers “guns to protect us from the guvmint” should get trained as an amateur radio operator first. (By the way, even as a supporter of the Second Amendment it is remarkable that in America one needs a license to operate a radio but not a rifle.)

humlee 8y ago

They will get it wrong till they get it right. The law isn't too different from software. It just deals with a lot more ambiguity. And people are conditioned to think things are black and white. Social media and mainstream media will get three sets of regulation wrt Privacy, Individual Manipulation, Group Manipulation. It doesn't matter which country you pick, the free for all that currently exists is not being tolerated.