4 ms·
>Trolls and abusive behaviors thrive on for-profit social platforms in part because at some level the platforms don’t mind this. They'd thrive even more on a g
by snickerbockers 7y ago
>Trolls and abusive behaviors thrive on for-profit social platforms in part because at some level the platforms don’t mind this.
They'd thrive even more on a government-funded platform which is legally obligated not to censor their speech.
- root_axis 7y agoIs that true? The FCC "censors" plenty of speech on the public airways, is that unconstitutional?
- snickerbockers 7y agoThe courts consider it to be a first-amendment violation for a politician to block somebody from on twitter. This is a clear-cut precedent that the Government isn't allowed to exclude US citizens from social media.
- root_axis 7y agoA representative of the government blocking a citizen from seeking redress from that representative is not the same thing as removing "objectionable" content.
- snickerbockers 7y agoYes it is.
- lonelappde 7y agoThen why do our cities have "free speech zones"?
- martey 7y agoThe author isn't suggesting that their proposed social network be run by the government, and there is no legal obligation for private non-profits who accept government funding to refrain from censorship. Later in the article, the author explicitly suggests that accounts be connected to real world identities in order to prevent fake accounts and discourage trolls.
- icelancer 7y ago>> Later in the article, the author explicitly suggests that accounts be connected to real world identities in order to prevent fake accounts and discourage trolls. This solves one problem and introduces about ten other massive issues with underrepresented populations, protected classes, and stalking. This is not a new idea. It's been tried many times before and shot down regularly for very obvious reasons.
- martey 7y ago> This solves one problem and introduces about ten other massive issues with underrepresented populations, protected classes, and stalking. I think the author already considered this. From the article: "An account on a public media platform would be tied to a real-world, local identity, like a driver’s license or library card. Anonymity online has real benefits, and a user name doesn’t have to be your real name. The public social media network could keep this information hashed, unscrambled only when action against a user is required, which would make it easier to crack down on fake and troll accounts."
- wolfgke 7y agoWho guards the guardians?
- lonelappde 7y ago> hashed, unscrambled Anyone who says this has no technical credibility.
- mbesto 7y ago> author explicitly suggests that accounts be connected to real world identities in order to prevent fake accounts and discourage trolls. Then the author is delusional (not offense). If we could create any platform that consistently tied an online profile to an online identity it would be a holy grail. But alas here we are.
- jeffdavis 7y agoYou claim there is no legal obligation. But when it starts to look like an end-run around the First Amendment, the courts will intervene.