4 ms·

Use the First Amendment standard, which is basically anything but obscenity and threats of imminent violence.

driverdan 6y ago
That's unreasonable. Without moderation you'd have a 100 to 1 ratio of spam to good content. Platforms should be able to control content in the way they see fit for their platform.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  Banning spam might be possible without giving platforms the power to make their own judgements about the truthfulness or decency of the content they host. If 90% of (a random subset of) users agree that a given piece of content is spam, the platform should be entitled to delete the content. The company would then be allowed to ban a user after a certain number of strikes, possibly subject to an appeals process where a human employee checks that this isn't a case of a minority viewpoint being unfairly silenced by false reports. This would democratise these platforms, and only give companies the discretion to allow more content than their users are interested in, rather than less.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    It seems that could easily be weaponized to remove minority opinions.
    - christkv 6y ago
      I would rather hope it kills the big platforms and forces a reverting to smaller platforms and message boards. Social media has become a scourge on humanity.
      - geofft 6y ago
        Should the government be in the business of regulating social media to death because it is a scourge on humanity? I am generally in favor of big government, but this seems too big even for me. (And if I were to be in favor of it, I would rather the government straightforwardly legislate what we don't like about social media or even ban it instead of burying it under crushing legal liability - which runs the risk that some even-more-scourgey platform will avoid the liability. For instance, the most vapid parts of Instagram would survive because there are no opinions or ideas there, just photos.)
- paul_f 6y ago
  Google is under fire for removing political speech they don't like, not spam. This is where losing the 230 protections become a problem for them.

That's unreasonable. Without moderation you'd have a 100 to 1 ratio of spam to good content. Platforms should be able to control content in the way they see fit for their platform.

dane-pgp 6y ago
Banning spam might be possible without giving platforms the power to make their own judgements about the truthfulness or decency of the content they host. If 90% of (a random subset of) users agree that a given piece of content is spam, the platform should be entitled to delete the content. The company would then be allowed to ban a user after a certain number of strikes, possibly subject to an appeals process where a human employee checks that this isn't a case of a minority viewpoint being unfairly silenced by false reports. This would democratise these platforms, and only give companies the discretion to allow more content than their users are interested in, rather than less.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  It seems that could easily be weaponized to remove minority opinions.
  - christkv 6y ago
    I would rather hope it kills the big platforms and forces a reverting to smaller platforms and message boards. Social media has become a scourge on humanity.
    - geofft 6y ago
      Should the government be in the business of regulating social media to death because it is a scourge on humanity? I am generally in favor of big government, but this seems too big even for me. (And if I were to be in favor of it, I would rather the government straightforwardly legislate what we don't like about social media or even ban it instead of burying it under crushing legal liability - which runs the risk that some even-more-scourgey platform will avoid the liability. For instance, the most vapid parts of Instagram would survive because there are no opinions or ideas there, just photos.)
paul_f 6y ago
Google is under fire for removing political speech they don't like, not spam. This is where losing the 230 protections become a problem for them.