3 ms·

I think its going to be a much harder line to draw than people assume. We already trust the big email providers (Microsoft, Google) to perform blanket spam fil

by basch 6y ago

I think its going to be a much harder line to draw than people assume. We already trust the big email providers (Microsoft, Google) to perform blanket spam filtering. Part of that working is that its non transparent, it works because its a black box that noise generators can't inspect. Where is the line between spam and valid speech? Individually, we have ceded control of filtering to the giants, because anything else is overwhelming. I am not sure I would be able to use any of these products if they didn't take a "block first, release from the filter later" approach.

syshum 6y ago
There is a big difference there, in that I have control over that spam filtering, i have allow or disallow individual senders, etc. So if I want to send content to 100 people, and all 100 people add me to an approved list well my content will get through That is not how these social media systems work
- basch 6y ago
  I agree, its not fully analogous. But it would be easy to write a law that has unintended consequences. Part of the problem with FB, Twitter, Youtube is that they are closed inoperable systems, a problem that doesnt hamper email. Things like real name policies also suppress speech. If a law were in place preventing Facebook censorship, it would also need to prevent deplatforming and facebook deciding who can and cant use its platform. Blocking speech they dont agree with, is different that blocking all speech from a speaker that sometimes says things Facebook doesnt like. There is also the issue of the newsfeed ranking algorithm itself. Is deranking something more than a thousand posts deep the same as censorship? They can basically control the spread of information, by allowing people to post it, but not allowing it to rise up the ranks. If said ranking exerted preference or bias, and applied to everyones feeds and all their groups, facebook can control the conversation without traditional censorship. At the same time, algorithmic news sorting basically IS the product, and thats what people go to it for.
zozbot234 6y ago
> We already trust the big email providers (Microsoft, Google) to perform blanket spam filtering. And that's the whole issue. Spam filtering should not be irreversibly bundled with the provision of an e-mail account. It can be a separate service, that you can opt-in to at your pleasure, or choose a different supplier to do your spam filtering. It could even be a plugin in your web-browser, automating the now manual "mark as spam" and "undo mark as spam" functions.

by basch 6y ago

syshum 6y ago

There is a big difference there, in that I have control over that spam filtering, i have allow or disallow individual senders, etc. So if I want to send content to 100 people, and all 100 people add me to an approved list well my content will get through That is not how these social media systems work

basch 6y ago
I agree, its not fully analogous. But it would be easy to write a law that has unintended consequences. Part of the problem with FB, Twitter, Youtube is that they are closed inoperable systems, a problem that doesnt hamper email. Things like real name policies also suppress speech. If a law were in place preventing Facebook censorship, it would also need to prevent deplatforming and facebook deciding who can and cant use its platform. Blocking speech they dont agree with, is different that blocking all speech from a speaker that sometimes says things Facebook doesnt like. There is also the issue of the newsfeed ranking algorithm itself. Is deranking something more than a thousand posts deep the same as censorship? They can basically control the spread of information, by allowing people to post it, but not allowing it to rise up the ranks. If said ranking exerted preference or bias, and applied to everyones feeds and all their groups, facebook can control the conversation without traditional censorship. At the same time, algorithmic news sorting basically IS the product, and thats what people go to it for.

zozbot234 6y ago

> We already trust the big email providers (Microsoft, Google) to perform blanket spam filtering. And that's the whole issue. Spam filtering should not be irreversibly bundled with the provision of an e-mail account. It can be a separate service, that you can opt-in to at your pleasure, or choose a different supplier to do your spam filtering. It could even be a plugin in your web-browser, automating the now manual "mark as spam" and "undo mark as spam" functions.