3 ms·

Beyond things that are broadly considered reprehensible (e.g. videos of rape), I'm not convinced that moderation/deplatforming is healthy for society. I defini

Beyond things that are broadly considered reprehensible (e.g. videos of rape), I'm not convinced that moderation/deplatforming is healthy for society. I definitely get the "my company - my rules" POV. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private spaces. Then again, I'm not convinced that moderators ought to have the power to control what sorts of ideas are interrogated publicly (e.g. in the company of strangers). It's particularly problematic when the social climate at the companies that control these platforms is synonymous with the Progressive echochamber, but it's also hard to imagine any body that would be qualified to police ideas. One of the worst things to happen this decade is the rise of social echochambers, where groups of people intellectually isolate themselves amongst likeminded people, writing-off dissenters as evil strawmen. The groupthink in these echochambers is nudged further to the extremes by the loudmouthed activists who control what ideas people are comfortable expressing. Large groups isolating themselves in these constantly drifting echochambers leads to the problems we saw this week in Washington. I fear making the platforms synonymous with these echochambers will only make this problem worse. Anonymity and free expression have historically been some of the best qualities of the Internet. Anyone can say - and think - anything, and share those thoughts with everyone. That's always included snark, parody, and similar absurdities. People don't always mean what they say - they often might not even know _if_ they mean what they say. Those same qualities make it particularly vulnerable to misinformation and conspiracy theories. Figuring out how to help people understand what's likely to be true without censoring the kinds of ideas people can openly express is one of the great challenges of our time. I really hope we solve it.

danijelb 6y ago
I think that we should look at phone numbers for the solution. I can call my friend on another phone network with no problem. My friend can transfer his number to a third company and I can still reach him on the same phone number. So the solution would need to be a standardized protocol and a guarantee that you can freely switch your whole account to a different provider. Imagine if you're on Twitter and you can follow a person on Parler. Parler has a right to moderate their own private space however they want. Twitter has a right to moderate their space however they want. But - Twitter can't influence how others moderate their spaces. So let's say that you are on Twitter and follow Trump on Twitter. Twitter decides to ban Trump. Trump should be able to migrate his account (with the username and profile history) to Parler and you, using Twitter would still magically follow him as before and would be able to read what he posts in your Twitter feed. Twitter would still be able to not show his tweets in their search, or their trending topics or any proprietary feature of the service, but if someone follows him explicitly, they'd still see his tweets in their timeline.
- busterarm 6y ago
  This is only possible because phone service is considered a utility and a number is like an address. These same rules prevent the phone company from doing things like declining your business and censoring your calls. The fact that these social media companies are not utilities is the entire reason that they need Section 230 protection. It sounds to me like the argument that you're making is that access to the internet _and_ identity on the internet are utilities that Americans cannot legally be deprived of. But that would make it so that Twitter could not ban people in the first place.

danijelb 6y ago

I think that we should look at phone numbers for the solution. I can call my friend on another phone network with no problem. My friend can transfer his number to a third company and I can still reach him on the same phone number. So the solution would need to be a standardized protocol and a guarantee that you can freely switch your whole account to a different provider. Imagine if you're on Twitter and you can follow a person on Parler. Parler has a right to moderate their own private space however they want. Twitter has a right to moderate their space however they want. But - Twitter can't influence how others moderate their spaces. So let's say that you are on Twitter and follow Trump on Twitter. Twitter decides to ban Trump. Trump should be able to migrate his account (with the username and profile history) to Parler and you, using Twitter would still magically follow him as before and would be able to read what he posts in your Twitter feed. Twitter would still be able to not show his tweets in their search, or their trending topics or any proprietary feature of the service, but if someone follows him explicitly, they'd still see his tweets in their timeline.

busterarm 6y ago
This is only possible because phone service is considered a utility and a number is like an address. These same rules prevent the phone company from doing things like declining your business and censoring your calls. The fact that these social media companies are not utilities is the entire reason that they need Section 230 protection. It sounds to me like the argument that you're making is that access to the internet _and_ identity on the internet are utilities that Americans cannot legally be deprived of. But that would make it so that Twitter could not ban people in the first place.