3 ms·

> The discussion _requires_ framing, and so does discussing "misinformation and extremist content" The framing is usually implied instead of spelled out precis

by Faark 7y ago

> The discussion _requires_ framing, and so does discussing "misinformation and extremist content" The framing is usually implied instead of spelled out precisely. At the same time, I don't see you arguing against this (probably shitty) implied framing and instead just pretending there is none. This makes it hard for me to take seriously, since it looks so similar to the "there is no perfect security so why even try" line of arguing. And yes, my alarm bells also went off by AG Barr talking about "misinformation and extremist content", even though I actually do think we should carefully observe whether current online platforms / communication changes our societies and if in a favorable way.

Guvante 7y ago
> since it looks so similar to the "there is no perfect security so why even try" line of arguing. What does "misinformation and extremist content" mean? Because that is the first point. Remember that the GOP called out large companies for "silencing the right" when they enacted policies that reduced misinformation and extremist content in the past. "Misinformation and extremist content" is thus itself an illdefined thing as different people consider different things to fall under it. The framing usually used is that "if the big companies are liable the content won't be there" which history has shown is only true in so far as "if the big companies are liable user made content won't be there" effectively as huge restrictive filters need to be put in place to avoid the liability. > even though I actually do think we should carefully observe whether current online platforms / communication changes our societies and if in a favorable way Feel free to talk about it, you are not trying to enact policy. AG Barr is involved in creating policy and thus should be careful about exactly what he suggests rather than invoking the same liability boogieman that hasn't served us in the past.

by Faark 7y ago

Guvante 7y ago

> since it looks so similar to the "there is no perfect security so why even try" line of arguing. What does "misinformation and extremist content" mean? Because that is the first point. Remember that the GOP called out large companies for "silencing the right" when they enacted policies that reduced misinformation and extremist content in the past. "Misinformation and extremist content" is thus itself an illdefined thing as different people consider different things to fall under it. The framing usually used is that "if the big companies are liable the content won't be there" which history has shown is only true in so far as "if the big companies are liable user made content won't be there" effectively as huge restrictive filters need to be put in place to avoid the liability. > even though I actually do think we should carefully observe whether current online platforms / communication changes our societies and if in a favorable way Feel free to talk about it, you are not trying to enact policy. AG Barr is involved in creating policy and thus should be careful about exactly what he suggests rather than invoking the same liability boogieman that hasn't served us in the past.