3 ms·
>liable for Think 10-15 years ago looking at the concept of these centralised platforms it'd pretty obvious any kind of arbitration would not be scalable and t
by ricardo81 6y ago
>liable for
Think 10-15 years ago looking at the concept of these centralised platforms it'd pretty obvious any kind of arbitration would not be scalable and therefore there wouldn't be. I mean, the business model depends on it.
I'm not a fan of them being arbiters of truth, also not a fan of there being 10's of thousands of blatant copyright infractions on their platforms daily which they monetise.
I don't think there's any other answer than decentralising groups on the web.
- topkai22 6y agoI think there needs to be a distinction between information seeking and passive interaction. If I go onto twitter and go to DPRK News (https://twitter.com/DPRK_News https://twitter.com/DPRK_News , quite a good parody account) it's clear that DPRK News is the publisher of all the information and twitter is the hoster. I'm seeking the information in the DPRK News feed. When I'm just flipping through twitter's infinite scroll then I'm not really seeking anything in particular than twitter is acting like a traditional editor- choosing the content I see. It's a different activity. I think platforms that choose content on behalf of the user need to have a different set of obligations than those that serve content based on user requests, an those obligations go up with scale. It's one thing to have a fake story or illegal content be seen by 100 friends, its another to feed it to 100,000 people.
- ricardo81 6y agoAgreed. I'd also add it's important how you discover DPRK News in the first place e.g. if it was recommended somehow via the platform.