3 ms·

Why do we constantly see this comment popping up here, as well as the "vote with your wallet" one? Yes, market forces can drive change, but they don't at all gu

by janpot 6y ago

Why do we constantly see this comment popping up here, as well as the "vote with your wallet" one? Yes, market forces can drive change, but they don't at all guarantee ethical behaviour of corporations. That's what we need regulation for, by a government that was elected by a population where everyone has an equal vote. Unlike in a "vote with your wallet" or "just start your own competitor" mindset where rich actors have more weight than poorer ones. Market forces are by definition undemocratic and therefore unsuitable for the task of enforcing ethics. And sure, democracy isn't a perfect guarantee for it neither, but at least it is designed for this purpose, and has been proven.

shortformblog 6y ago
Because this is how the First Amendment works (in the physical world as well as digital) and how Section 230 works. Section 230 has some exceptions, but those exceptions are very limited at this time. Section 230 was implemented to ALLOW for moderation, not to prevent it.
- EricE 6y ago
  I have no problem with moderation that's not editorial control in hiding. If platform published their content rules and publicly demonstrated how they apply them equally I doubt we would be having any of these discussions. Instead we have "moderation" that always favors one political line of thought. That's not moderation, that's editorial control and at that point I think it's more than reasonable to argue you have crossed the threshold from platform to publisher. Usenet survived for decades and still does without some central bureaucracy lording over it. Have an issue with them? Plonk! Freaking snowflakes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and this is the slipperiest road yet. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Remember when that used to be a catch phrase of the left? What a bizzaro time we live in.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > If platform published their content rules and publicly demonstrated how they apply them equally I doubt we would be having any of these discussions. They do (or at least the publishing part). Who decides whether or not they apply them "equally"? The government? Like you want the Trump administration to have decision making power over whether or not Twitter is fairly moderating content? > Instead we have "moderation" that always favors one political line of thought. This is certainly a claim made. I view things differently: right-wing media and pundits have been treated with kid gloves for decades now. The shift to treating them "fairly" is viewed as discrimination, much the same way as certain groups on the far right have viewed every other example of "objective" fair treatment as discrimination, since they ultimately feel as though they've lost some privilege. You may view things differently, but you're clearly biased (and perhaps, so am I). So why should I trust you to make objective decisions here?

by janpot 6y ago

shortformblog 6y ago

Because this is how the First Amendment works (in the physical world as well as digital) and how Section 230 works. Section 230 has some exceptions, but those exceptions are very limited at this time. Section 230 was implemented to ALLOW for moderation, not to prevent it.

EricE 6y ago
I have no problem with moderation that's not editorial control in hiding. If platform published their content rules and publicly demonstrated how they apply them equally I doubt we would be having any of these discussions. Instead we have "moderation" that always favors one political line of thought. That's not moderation, that's editorial control and at that point I think it's more than reasonable to argue you have crossed the threshold from platform to publisher. Usenet survived for decades and still does without some central bureaucracy lording over it. Have an issue with them? Plonk! Freaking snowflakes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and this is the slipperiest road yet. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Remember when that used to be a catch phrase of the left? What a bizzaro time we live in.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > If platform published their content rules and publicly demonstrated how they apply them equally I doubt we would be having any of these discussions. They do (or at least the publishing part). Who decides whether or not they apply them "equally"? The government? Like you want the Trump administration to have decision making power over whether or not Twitter is fairly moderating content? > Instead we have "moderation" that always favors one political line of thought. This is certainly a claim made. I view things differently: right-wing media and pundits have been treated with kid gloves for decades now. The shift to treating them "fairly" is viewed as discrimination, much the same way as certain groups on the far right have viewed every other example of "objective" fair treatment as discrimination, since they ultimately feel as though they've lost some privilege. You may view things differently, but you're clearly biased (and perhaps, so am I). So why should I trust you to make objective decisions here?