4 ms·

> Actually, it’s entirely possible to have different legislation for different sized organizations. The tax bracket for individuals is an example. Still illega

> Actually, it’s entirely possible to have different legislation for different sized organizations. The tax bracket for individuals is an example. Still illegal as per the First Amendment. The government cannot compel speech, regardless of company size. > I’m more of the opinion that Facebook should be punished as an example. Don’t grow so big that your unilateral action could have devastating effects on society. Don’t do things with peoples data that remotely rises to the 1984 totalitarian level. See how fast we have publicly owned holdings companies of regional wellsfargo/BoA type banks, facebooks, credit reporting agencies, etc. It’s inline with concepts of having different forms of government at the local, regional, and federal levels. I'm not sure how any of this has to do with content moderation.

ianai 7y ago
Facebook has a huge audience. They make it easy to for one entity to target a huge number of people with customized content per person. And yet people have some weird affinity to believe anything they see on it. If you instead had to work with several hundred facebooks across the world to target everybody it becomes more federated. The local facebooks would have more knowledge and incentive and resources to police their content for abuse.
- ianai 7y ago
  I can imagine a few ways this may be legally executed. One is to use the 1800s anti-trust laws to forcibly break up Facebook. Create the smaller entities I described in the process and say “this is the standard for a social media company.” Another would be to endow or reinforce citizens private data as some form of personal property. Give them the legal means to sue and demand payment for any storage of their PI. Make the costs of offenses steep. I am definitely not a lawyer though and not as up to date as I should be for this sort of spit balling. Edit-I think they could also tie a temporal component and per instance cost of storing someone’s “PI”. That value could then be a basis to tax the corporation- create an incentive to “forget”. Edit2-make a persons likeness and social media posts part of this “PI.” This would give Pelosi the legal right to the doctored content.
  - BaronSamedi 7y ago
    I agree that breaking up these companies is the best option. I can understand the calls for regulation but that is only treating the symptom and will have negative side-effects. The size and position of companies like Facebook leads to a concentration of power which is almost never desirable.
- chillacy 7y ago
  I can’t think of any internet companies that naturally federate well. The nature of the internet being one place lends itself to winner take all mechanics, and this makes the world a smaller place geographically and a bigger place ideologically. Now we can chat on HN because we share interests (ideologically close) even if we live in different countries, but we may not chat at all with people outside our circles in our own towns.
archgoon 7y ago
> Still illegal as per the First Amendment. The government cannot compel speech, regardless of company size. The United States Government can't; however, the U.S. tends to have stronger free-speech laws than other countries, and as we've seen with GDPR, other governments (including some democratic governments) may choose to legislate additional restrictions that Facebook might end up just deploying everywhere. Not saying that this would necessarily be a good outcome.

ianai 7y ago

Facebook has a huge audience. They make it easy to for one entity to target a huge number of people with customized content per person. And yet people have some weird affinity to believe anything they see on it. If you instead had to work with several hundred facebooks across the world to target everybody it becomes more federated. The local facebooks would have more knowledge and incentive and resources to police their content for abuse.

ianai 7y ago
I can imagine a few ways this may be legally executed. One is to use the 1800s anti-trust laws to forcibly break up Facebook. Create the smaller entities I described in the process and say “this is the standard for a social media company.” Another would be to endow or reinforce citizens private data as some form of personal property. Give them the legal means to sue and demand payment for any storage of their PI. Make the costs of offenses steep. I am definitely not a lawyer though and not as up to date as I should be for this sort of spit balling. Edit-I think they could also tie a temporal component and per instance cost of storing someone’s “PI”. That value could then be a basis to tax the corporation- create an incentive to “forget”. Edit2-make a persons likeness and social media posts part of this “PI.” This would give Pelosi the legal right to the doctored content.
- BaronSamedi 7y ago
  I agree that breaking up these companies is the best option. I can understand the calls for regulation but that is only treating the symptom and will have negative side-effects. The size and position of companies like Facebook leads to a concentration of power which is almost never desirable.
chillacy 7y ago
I can’t think of any internet companies that naturally federate well. The nature of the internet being one place lends itself to winner take all mechanics, and this makes the world a smaller place geographically and a bigger place ideologically. Now we can chat on HN because we share interests (ideologically close) even if we live in different countries, but we may not chat at all with people outside our circles in our own towns.

archgoon 7y ago

> Still illegal as per the First Amendment. The government cannot compel speech, regardless of company size. The United States Government can't; however, the U.S. tends to have stronger free-speech laws than other countries, and as we've seen with GDPR, other governments (including some democratic governments) may choose to legislate additional restrictions that Facebook might end up just deploying everywhere. Not saying that this would necessarily be a good outcome.