4 ms·

They crossed a long time ago! They should have worked like phone lines, just a medium

deeg 6y ago
I don't think it would work that well. Phone conversations are private and so there won't be much pressure to crack down on hateful or false conversations. Social media is very public. I'd say it's closer to radio than telephone.
- pesq 6y ago
  Radio carriers are liable for their content so in this situation same difference.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Social media is very public. This is part of the "mistake" of the social media companies. Rather than emphasizing cohesive friend groups, they (particularly Facebook) defaulted everything to be as widely visible as possible.
- laurent92 6y ago
  Should radio be state-controlled? For me, democracy has 4 pillars that must be independent, and currently are not is most countries: executive, legislative, judicial and media. The 4th one is controversial but nonetheless necessary for the country to be a democracy. Democracy without equal speech time for all parties isn’t a democracy – it is like Singapore, a single-party democracy. Finally, we must have a population who is educated enough to read ambiant news and distinguish false from truth. If you say that is impossible, you advocate for the people’s decision being taken by a central organization, aka not people’s decision. Educating people enough is entirely possible; For example people are routinely exposed to scam and a rule of life is never to fall down into scam. Only a few % of pop fall for it and it is fine. Democracy is based on the same people. You precisely shouldn’t prevent people from being exposed to fake news, otherwise they become ultra gullible (which may be what you want, in the end...). All in all, what leftists call fake news or debunked news are often... falsely debunked, by journalists who try to present alternative facts, which the people are getting tired of. It’s ok, we understand they don’t want to lose grip of the leadership.
  - deeg 6y ago
    I don't have a good answer. My original comment was just to point out that I don't believe social media can be treated like the telephone. From a legal/political standpoint SM is on new ground: a privately owned (i.e. non government) platform but with massive reach. Free speech laws are aimed at the government so should they be applied to private companies? I can understand both sides and I don't think there's an obvious solution.
  - nopzor 6y ago
    singapore is not a single party democracy. you could have made that argument 20 years ago, but it just isn’t true today.
ssss11 6y ago
Ueah this should have been the way it went, for facebook at least, but of course they _want_ to be a media company... they think they can take down traditional media and have got themselves into all sorts of problems!
kurthr 6y ago
Then there would be less engagement and less profit... what are you a communist? I'm kidding, but ad supported commercial promotion (broadcast) of speech (for additional profit/engagement) is pretty far from what I think the framers of the constitution meant as Free Speech (of the individual)... but then the Supreme Court has decided that money is speech (and corporations are people) so it doesn't matter what I think.
ardy42 6y ago
> They crossed a long time ago! They should have worked like phone lines, just a medium Yes, they should have just been private point-to-point communication mechanisms. Unfortunately, they decided to be broadcasters instead.

deeg 6y ago

I don't think it would work that well. Phone conversations are private and so there won't be much pressure to crack down on hateful or false conversations. Social media is very public. I'd say it's closer to radio than telephone.

pesq 6y ago
Radio carriers are liable for their content so in this situation same difference.
nitrogen 6y ago
Social media is very public. This is part of the "mistake" of the social media companies. Rather than emphasizing cohesive friend groups, they (particularly Facebook) defaulted everything to be as widely visible as possible.
laurent92 6y ago
Should radio be state-controlled? For me, democracy has 4 pillars that must be independent, and currently are not is most countries: executive, legislative, judicial and media. The 4th one is controversial but nonetheless necessary for the country to be a democracy. Democracy without equal speech time for all parties isn’t a democracy – it is like Singapore, a single-party democracy. Finally, we must have a population who is educated enough to read ambiant news and distinguish false from truth. If you say that is impossible, you advocate for the people’s decision being taken by a central organization, aka not people’s decision. Educating people enough is entirely possible; For example people are routinely exposed to scam and a rule of life is never to fall down into scam. Only a few % of pop fall for it and it is fine. Democracy is based on the same people. You precisely shouldn’t prevent people from being exposed to fake news, otherwise they become ultra gullible (which may be what you want, in the end...). All in all, what leftists call fake news or debunked news are often... falsely debunked, by journalists who try to present alternative facts, which the people are getting tired of. It’s ok, we understand they don’t want to lose grip of the leadership.
- deeg 6y ago
  I don't have a good answer. My original comment was just to point out that I don't believe social media can be treated like the telephone. From a legal/political standpoint SM is on new ground: a privately owned (i.e. non government) platform but with massive reach. Free speech laws are aimed at the government so should they be applied to private companies? I can understand both sides and I don't think there's an obvious solution.
- nopzor 6y ago
  singapore is not a single party democracy. you could have made that argument 20 years ago, but it just isn’t true today.

ssss11 6y ago

Ueah this should have been the way it went, for facebook at least, but of course they _want_ to be a media company... they think they can take down traditional media and have got themselves into all sorts of problems!

kurthr 6y ago

Then there would be less engagement and less profit... what are you a communist? I'm kidding, but ad supported commercial promotion (broadcast) of speech (for additional profit/engagement) is pretty far from what I think the framers of the constitution meant as Free Speech (of the individual)... but then the Supreme Court has decided that money is speech (and corporations are people) so it doesn't matter what I think.

ardy42 6y ago

> They crossed a long time ago! They should have worked like phone lines, just a medium Yes, they should have just been private point-to-point communication mechanisms. Unfortunately, they decided to be broadcasters instead.