3 ms·

> Site operators can and should have the ability to ban anyone or remove any content, for any reason or no reason. If a major fraction of human communication,

> Site operators can and should have the ability to ban anyone or remove any content, for any reason or no reason. If a major fraction of human communication, especially during lockdowns, is facilitated by social networks then they are fulfilling a utility role. So being in the position of dictating what millions of people will talk about is at least questionable. > for anything but the most massive sites that could theoretically afford an army of moderators Ok, I have not considered this angle and it is indeed concerning. > Destroying the concept of moderation does not make the world better. That may be the goal of the FCC, but I for one did not say that I am in support of destroying moderation. Quite the opposite, I was thinking how it could be made to work while providing more open communication platforms and putting more control in the hands of the users rather than the companies.

JoshTriplett 6y ago
> If a major fraction of human communication, especially during lockdowns, is facilitated by social networks then they are fulfilling a utility role. Removing the ability of those sites to moderate will not make them better. (Even if it did by some metric, that still wouldn't be acceptable; what constitutes "better" is entirely up to the site owner to determine. But it's even less reasonable given that it wouldn't have the intended effect, unless the intended effect is to cause harm.) Having many users should not suddenly mean you don't own the site, nor should it mean that you cannot moderate the site as you see fit. "We came up with a new algorithm to automatically detect spam" should not need to come with "and several years later we managed to get the government to say we're allowed to use it without incurring liability". >> for anything but the most massive sites that could theoretically afford an army of moderators > Ok, I have not considered this angle and it is indeed concerning. That angle is why Section 230 was created in the first place, and why it should remain intact. > That may be the goal of the FCC, but I for one did not say that I am in support of destroying moderation. Removing the liability shield for sites that moderate will destroy either the site or the moderation, and either way the usefulness of the site comes to an end. > Quite the opposite, I was thinking how it could be made to work while providing more open communication platforms and putting more control in the hands of the users rather than the companies. Make a new network that puts control in the hands of the users in the way you envision, and test it to see how well it works. Or join one of the existing efforts already working on that. This isn't a legislative problem; it certainly shouldn't have a legislative non-solution masquerading as a solution. I think most people's experience with moderation puts more weight on any encounters they've had with being moderated, and little to no weight (except perhaps in the abstract) on the volume of what they don't see. Moderation, when done well, is close to invisible; I think as a side effect of that, people underestimate its value in contributing to their good experiences.
- the8472 6y ago
  > Having many users should not suddenly mean you don't own the site You continue to own it, but that does not mean you can do arbitrary things to your users. That's precisely how things work for utilities. You can do whatever with your private road or power generator. But if you're providing essential services to the masses then eventually universal service, non-discrimination and neutrality rules come into play. If doctors coordinate their covid response over facebook groups, elon musk makes stock-affecting announcement over twitter and the police sends out warnings via twitter than they're taking on the role of a public communication provider. You could argue that it's a free service and you're not a customer as you're with a utility. But on the other hand you're paying with your data and attention. > Removing the liability shield for sites that moderate will destroy either the site or the moderation, and either way the usefulness of the site comes to an end. You're assuming that there is no way to adapt to the new rules. Separation of platform services and moderation would be one. Would it work? Maybe not and you could be right and communities would be destroyed. Or maybe it would result in more Bloggers, Wordpresses and Signals. > Make a new network that puts control in the hands of the users in the way you envision, and test it to see how well it works. Regulation is a valid approach though? I'm not saying that the FCC is intending to do good here, just that I can can imagine a hypothetical well-intentioned version of what they're doing. > That angle is why Section 230 was created in the first place, and why it should remain intact. Let me rephrase, I find it concerning that it could specifically empower the entrenched players while harming the smaller ones. Requiring an army of moderators when you want to create a global communication platform on the one hand but impose your preferred corporate image (and be it just to remain attractive to advertisiers) on all participants then I am not feeling all that sympathetic. And this isn't just about communication in the narrow sense. The controversy around the apple app store is in a similar vein. On the one hand they pretend that they act as a simple market facilitator, a platform. On the other hand they categorically ban certain categories of legal software because it goes against their corporate interests. Forcing them to choose between platform and publisher could result in either a smaller, carefully curated official apple store + sideloading or larger, more open default app store. Either outcome seems desirable to me.
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago

JoshTriplett 6y ago

> If a major fraction of human communication, especially during lockdowns, is facilitated by social networks then they are fulfilling a utility role. Removing the ability of those sites to moderate will not make them better. (Even if it did by some metric, that still wouldn't be acceptable; what constitutes "better" is entirely up to the site owner to determine. But it's even less reasonable given that it wouldn't have the intended effect, unless the intended effect is to cause harm.) Having many users should not suddenly mean you don't own the site, nor should it mean that you cannot moderate the site as you see fit. "We came up with a new algorithm to automatically detect spam" should not need to come with "and several years later we managed to get the government to say we're allowed to use it without incurring liability". >> for anything but the most massive sites that could theoretically afford an army of moderators > Ok, I have not considered this angle and it is indeed concerning. That angle is why Section 230 was created in the first place, and why it should remain intact. > That may be the goal of the FCC, but I for one did not say that I am in support of destroying moderation. Removing the liability shield for sites that moderate will destroy either the site or the moderation, and either way the usefulness of the site comes to an end. > Quite the opposite, I was thinking how it could be made to work while providing more open communication platforms and putting more control in the hands of the users rather than the companies. Make a new network that puts control in the hands of the users in the way you envision, and test it to see how well it works. Or join one of the existing efforts already working on that. This isn't a legislative problem; it certainly shouldn't have a legislative non-solution masquerading as a solution. I think most people's experience with moderation puts more weight on any encounters they've had with being moderated, and little to no weight (except perhaps in the abstract) on the volume of what they don't see. Moderation, when done well, is close to invisible; I think as a side effect of that, people underestimate its value in contributing to their good experiences.

the8472 6y ago
> Having many users should not suddenly mean you don't own the site You continue to own it, but that does not mean you can do arbitrary things to your users. That's precisely how things work for utilities. You can do whatever with your private road or power generator. But if you're providing essential services to the masses then eventually universal service, non-discrimination and neutrality rules come into play. If doctors coordinate their covid response over facebook groups, elon musk makes stock-affecting announcement over twitter and the police sends out warnings via twitter than they're taking on the role of a public communication provider. You could argue that it's a free service and you're not a customer as you're with a utility. But on the other hand you're paying with your data and attention. > Removing the liability shield for sites that moderate will destroy either the site or the moderation, and either way the usefulness of the site comes to an end. You're assuming that there is no way to adapt to the new rules. Separation of platform services and moderation would be one. Would it work? Maybe not and you could be right and communities would be destroyed. Or maybe it would result in more Bloggers, Wordpresses and Signals. > Make a new network that puts control in the hands of the users in the way you envision, and test it to see how well it works. Regulation is a valid approach though? I'm not saying that the FCC is intending to do good here, just that I can can imagine a hypothetical well-intentioned version of what they're doing. > That angle is why Section 230 was created in the first place, and why it should remain intact. Let me rephrase, I find it concerning that it could specifically empower the entrenched players while harming the smaller ones. Requiring an army of moderators when you want to create a global communication platform on the one hand but impose your preferred corporate image (and be it just to remain attractive to advertisiers) on all participants then I am not feeling all that sympathetic. And this isn't just about communication in the narrow sense. The controversy around the apple app store is in a similar vein. On the one hand they pretend that they act as a simple market facilitator, a platform. On the other hand they categorically ban certain categories of legal software because it goes against their corporate interests. Forcing them to choose between platform and publisher could result in either a smaller, carefully curated official apple store + sideloading or larger, more open default app store. Either outcome seems desirable to me.
- JoshTriplett 6y ago