4 ms·

Sometimes, a difference in magnitude can become a difference in kind. The speed, algorithms, engagement, etc of modern social media is entirely unprecedented,

Sometimes, a difference in magnitude can become a difference in kind. The speed, algorithms, engagement, etc of modern social media is entirely unprecedented, and makes it an entirely new problem we have to deal with.

jinkyu 6y ago
this post gets it.
- silexia 6y ago
  Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run their own private businesses. Social media platforms are not some sort of public utility. Social media platforms are private businesses owned by private individuals who can choose who they want to let in and who they want to kick out just like any restaurant or bar or concert hall. If you dislike who a social media platform allows or does not allow, just use a different one. For example, many Trump supporters use parler... A platform which is known to kick off liberal voices. Or better yet, just set up your own blog on your own host and do whatever you want.
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    The problem here with the Libertarian argument of "live and let live" is that clearly these people didn't.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Turns out the state has the power to regulate private businesses, and when a business has so much power that it can unilaterally influence (even threaten) democratic process, the state ought to regulate it (or else it regulates the state).
    - Natanael_L 6y ago
      For internet services in general (and most other non-broadcast communications), free speech laws in many jurisdictions prevent most (or all) types of content regulation.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        Right, but if an individual spreads misinformation, child pornography, piracy, threats, harassment, defamation, etc they are liable. Social networks are uniquely not responsible for the content that they curate--they enjoy the best of both worlds, and they oughtn't. If their curation is "speech" they should be legally accountable to for their speech like the rest of us are. There's precedent here with telecoms--they're free from scrutiny because they're just dumb pipes. This is one conceivable kind of legislation that doesn't run afoul of the first amendment. Another approach might be to require social networks to interoperate so consumers can choose between different networks. I should be able to leave Twitter without leaving my network. In this way, Twitter (et al) loses a lot of its power and thus its ability to threaten democracy. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
        Natanael_L 6y ago
        No. CDA section 230 covers all online services. There is no special social media exception. The only way for the service to be a dumb pipe is to not involve any kind of promotion or ranking algorithms to it, other than spam filtering. In other words, you can't have a dynamic high quality forum that is open to the public, with focus on the best content displayed first, and also be a dumb pipe. To prevent all moderation and ranking based on quality and opinion would quickly turn most sites into pure trash. It is unreasonable to apply such regulations to anything but the actual dumb pipe, the internet connection (net neutrality). Federation is indeed a much better choice. Allows the host to still set a quality standard on their server, and is at the same time free from gatekeepers. See Mastodon, Matrix, etc. Go to whichever host will accept you, talk to anybody willing to talk to you, and bans only kick you off specific servers. No regulation needed.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
    - rrauenza 6y ago
      What are some precedents to this - specifically democracy? I can think of union busting to protect national security / economy ... (air traffic controllers...) ... COVID shutdowns to protect health.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        I'm not an expert, but I believe the original "trusts" that spurred antitrust laws were so powerful that they were able to significantly influence government. As I understand it, this was (one of?) the motivation(s) for antitrust legislation.
      - Fjolsvith 6y ago
        Ma Bell.

jinkyu 6y ago

this post gets it.

silexia 6y ago
Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run their own private businesses. Social media platforms are not some sort of public utility. Social media platforms are private businesses owned by private individuals who can choose who they want to let in and who they want to kick out just like any restaurant or bar or concert hall. If you dislike who a social media platform allows or does not allow, just use a different one. For example, many Trump supporters use parler... A platform which is known to kick off liberal voices. Or better yet, just set up your own blog on your own host and do whatever you want.
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  The problem here with the Libertarian argument of "live and let live" is that clearly these people didn't.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Turns out the state has the power to regulate private businesses, and when a business has so much power that it can unilaterally influence (even threaten) democratic process, the state ought to regulate it (or else it regulates the state).
  - Natanael_L 6y ago
    For internet services in general (and most other non-broadcast communications), free speech laws in many jurisdictions prevent most (or all) types of content regulation.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      Right, but if an individual spreads misinformation, child pornography, piracy, threats, harassment, defamation, etc they are liable. Social networks are uniquely not responsible for the content that they curate--they enjoy the best of both worlds, and they oughtn't. If their curation is "speech" they should be legally accountable to for their speech like the rest of us are. There's precedent here with telecoms--they're free from scrutiny because they're just dumb pipes. This is one conceivable kind of legislation that doesn't run afoul of the first amendment. Another approach might be to require social networks to interoperate so consumers can choose between different networks. I should be able to leave Twitter without leaving my network. In this way, Twitter (et al) loses a lot of its power and thus its ability to threaten democracy. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
      - Natanael_L 6y ago
        No. CDA section 230 covers all online services. There is no special social media exception. The only way for the service to be a dumb pipe is to not involve any kind of promotion or ranking algorithms to it, other than spam filtering. In other words, you can't have a dynamic high quality forum that is open to the public, with focus on the best content displayed first, and also be a dumb pipe. To prevent all moderation and ranking based on quality and opinion would quickly turn most sites into pure trash. It is unreasonable to apply such regulations to anything but the actual dumb pipe, the internet connection (net neutrality). Federation is indeed a much better choice. Allows the host to still set a quality standard on their server, and is at the same time free from gatekeepers. See Mastodon, Matrix, etc. Go to whichever host will accept you, talk to anybody willing to talk to you, and bans only kick you off specific servers. No regulation needed.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
  - rrauenza 6y ago
    What are some precedents to this - specifically democracy? I can think of union busting to protect national security / economy ... (air traffic controllers...) ... COVID shutdowns to protect health.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      I'm not an expert, but I believe the original "trusts" that spurred antitrust laws were so powerful that they were able to significantly influence government. As I understand it, this was (one of?) the motivation(s) for antitrust legislation.
    - Fjolsvith 6y ago
      Ma Bell.