22 ms·

EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

277 points by sampo 6y ago

yummybear 6y ago
You really have to walk a censorship tight rope as a social media. You need to remove content that targets minorities and hate speech or face consequence, but only when it applies to the bottom 99% of society - apparently. The fact that the EU seems to want control over who gets to express themselves freely, is even more troubling than the inconsistent rules applies by the media themselves.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  Suddenly it is very easy for the powers that be to see the threat these platforms pose. Deplatform little people? Fine with us. Deplatform a head of state? Can't have that! Facebook, Twitter, et al are going to regret the pandora's box of unintended consequences they just opened up with this move.
  - Traster 6y ago
    Frankly, facebook, twitter et al. really didn't have much choice. They've been as tolerant as they can be. It was parler that screwed things up. It was meant to be a right wing equivalent to the left wing social media companies (who, coincidentally, are incredibly anti-union, anti-corporate tax, and anti-workers right, or as was previously known incredibly right wing). Instead they produced a platform that was rampant with death threats, resulting in the only (overtly) right wing platform collapsing.
- Talanes 6y ago
  Exactly this. The problem lies in the power to control expression lying in too few hands. Just having the same media system, but with the government directing who they ban is just passing the buck.
  - ortusdux 6y ago
    I've been wondering how much of all this is an (over?)reaction to the threat of the repeal of section 230. How many of the people making these decisions have reciently had meetings with legal where they learn what changes they would need to make to not risk lawsuits. Allowing governmental oversight, with legal protection, would sound pretty good in comparison.
    - loopz 6y ago
      We clearly need to understand what rules and algorithms are OK, what are their side-effects and potential for abuse. To get governments into moderation business sounds like an idea that simply won't scale. We already got laws to cover the legal aspects.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- boplicity 6y ago
  I've run a niche "social media" site for 12 years. There is no tightrope. The problem is that these large platforms want the benefits of scale, without being responsible for dealing with the problems of scale. It is imminently possible to build a thriving social media site that enforces standards of behavior. HN is a good example. However, it is work to actually enforce those standards. It takes leadership. Facebook, Twitter, etc, are not interested in providing that type of leadership, and would likely require both a huge economic investment, and a significant change in business strategy.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    What would happen if Trump was on your site and constantly violated your standards of behaviour?
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Can't speak for the grandparent, but here he'd be warned several times, then banned.
      - njharman 6y ago
        The point is who gets to decide the standards of behavior? There are tons of laws restricting what standards can be. Fair housing act. Education, phone service are examples of things that can’t be arbitrarily denied because people providing disagree with who you are, what you belief, or what you do (excepting illegal activity). Many argue the Internet and some of these services should be added to that list.
  - mongol 6y ago
    Exactly this. They want both control, and ability to wash their hands, while running their operations at scale. There is the famous saying, "time, quality and cost, choose two". There is a similar "social media law" I believe, that is yet to be stated, but where scale is one parameter.
andrewstuart 6y ago
I'm left wing but I despair for the future of the left. If the right had control of the tech companies it would have removed left content years ago and never blinked or even thought twice about it. The right never agonises over its own strong decisions, whereas the left, if it takes strong action , wrings its hands in agony about whether it has done the correct thing or not. That's why in the long run the right will beat the left because it is utterly shameless in taken any action it can to assert power, whilst the left is reluctant to take any strong action. The left scores a knockdown on the right via social media restriction, but soon enough, the left will offer a hand to help the right back up so they can win the fight.
- loxs 6y ago
  The sad thing is that this is exactly how the right sees the actions of the left. and it's even worse, as they (the left) are now winning. Their eyes are not blinking - they don't care about freedom of speech or fair game. In the long run, both sides start to see this modus operandi as completely normal. Censorship and vengeance to the other side are completely acceptable. As a libertarian, I am utterly horrified.
  - j_walter 6y ago
    This. We don't have civil discourse anymore...people just yell and call people names. You don't like what the other person says they are a "libtard"...or a "racist". You don't like what they are doing online, get them kicked off or dox them to your friends. Justify online bullying like it's a sport. Now it's escalated to not just banning them from social media...but a coordinated effort to destroy the alternative platform they had.
    - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
      When did speaking truth to power become "bullying"? And anyway, removing those who spew violent rhetoric is how civility is restored. The fact that the response to Twitter bans is so violent proves somebody needed to be silenced.
FrameworkFred 6y ago
I see the argument the commission is making, but when it comes to the question of inciting violence on privately owned systems, is it really the right idea to move it to some sort of public committee when the target is "too big to censor?"
- orange_tee 6y ago
  Remember that Facebook and Twitter only acted after the fact. For them, Trump was too big to censor too. They only took action days before he is out of office when it was guaranteed he would leave.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tsherr 6y ago
    FB and Twitter didn't deplatform Trump because he was a nasty bastard who was inciting revolt. They did it because the Democrats won and they want to suck up.
    - orange_tee 6y ago
      Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
    - azernik 6y ago
      They didn't deplatform him until he crossed a line in terms of violence; they didn't deplatform him right after the presidential or even the Georgia races were called.
  - FrameworkFred 6y ago
    That's not altogether true. They've been footnoting his posts where there's been a mismatch with reality.
bjeds 6y ago
I'm impressed that the EU is taking action in this case and I hope they also look into the shutdown of Parler under antitrust legislation. Parler was the number one downloaded social media app in the app store after all. According to BBC the most popular accounts on Parler were people like Sean Hannity and Ted Cruz, who each had followers in the millions. Of course Parler had a problem with some - maybe even many - violent people, like the Washington rioters, but it seems to me that the vast majority of Parler users were not violent people, but fairly normal republicans of the kind that are still not banned on Twitter and Facebook (like the two persons I mentioned). Removing the hyperbole on each side, I think it'd be interesting if the EU looked into this to conclude if the shutdown of Parler was ok or not.
- africanboy 6y ago
  I think EU doesn't have an opinion on Parler, that's a business relationship gone wrong. The leak of the Parler content shows that they were actively moderating the platform to push it on the far right side, using millions of fake accounts with admin privileges. So Amazon terminated their account. The ban of Trump from social networks is a different topic, I don't think Trump has a big fan base in EU, but it's the perfect excuse to demand what many have been advocating for years now: political control of the social network decisions, given that they can influence the public opinion (Facebook admitted today that their platform was used to spread violence in Myanmar) I have personally advocated for putting social network under public scrutiny or close their operations in EU. I am glad that the European Union is finally taking steps in that direction. EDIT: source -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121
  - leothecool 6y ago
    > they were actively moderating the platform to push it on the far right side Do you have a source for this? I tried googling it for ~5 minutes, but my google-fu is too weak.
    - africanboy 6y ago
      source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121
raverbashing 6y ago
Freedom of expression on platforms is important But it absolutely does not matter for a person in a position of power who has dedicated dedicated public information channels Twitter is right, in the same way any journalist has the right to publish or not a statement by the president
proactivesvcs 6y ago
Assuming that a company's terms of service are deemed fair and legal, why would it be "no longer acceptable" to apply them? I couldn't care less how high profile someone is, what public office they hold; if they break the agreement they made with a service provider, they should be subject to the consequences they agreed to. What I would like to see is a company being obliged to enforce its terms of service promptly, and not allow profitable rule-breakers to continue. Especially when their abuse of the service also breaks laws.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  I think we need to acknowledge that a lot of what these agreements outline is, to a large degree, subjective. If human language, or expression in general, weren't contextual and up for interpretation, then I think this would be a viable way of looking at things, but that simply isn't the case. So long as there is room for interpretation, and the consequences (politically, economically, etc.) of those interpretations are potentially far reaching, leaving it up to private companies with no oversight isn't a good option.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    So you have n companies each applying their own subjective judgement over their own networks, or you have 1 government applying its own subjective judgement over all networks in that country. It's highly unlikely that the latter is more friendly to fringe or extremist views (setting aside whether or not that's a good thing).
    - dimroc 6y ago
      One government is optimistic in this case. This is the EU talking, they'll gladly deliberate for months before any action is taken. Furthermore, wouldn't this worsen an authoritarian or Trump-like scenario? We are expecting the government to moderate itself? Wouldn't a yes man/crony just sit in that seat ala William Barr and let the tweets go unchecked?
      - 6y ago
turbinerneiter 6y ago
I fully agree that these decisions have to be done by democratic institutions. They also have to be very liberal and very careful and erring on the side of not taking things down. My biggest problem however is the EU commission acting like they are a democratic institution. The president of the commission didn't even run in the election. We were promised that the candidate of the winning party would become president of the commission, but then he didn't and they gave us von der Leyen instead, who never really accomplished anything but hiring consultants. And even that she couldn't do right. The whole storming the caption hill thing is also funny in that regard. Now we suddenly defend that place as this important symbolic institution of democracy, and how dare they! But in reality, we all know that the people in there spend most of their time sucking up to their donors to stay in power. And we know that they very, very, very often make decision that favour their donors to the detriment of the ... voters.
- jlokier 6y ago
  I think your comment gives the misleading impression Von der Leyen was not elected at all. So for readers who may not know the system: Von der Leyen's appointment, and the EU Commission, were both subject to approval votes by MEPs of the EU Parliament, who are elected by EU citizens in all member countries using proportional representation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_der_Leyen_Commission#Election_and_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_der_Leyen_Commission#Elect... > On 16 July 2019, European Parliament took a vote on the proposal by the European Council and elected Von der Leyen with 383 votes (374 votes needed). > The Commission was approved by European Parliament on 27 November 2019, receiving 461 votes, with 157 against and 89 abstentions.
  - turbinerneiter 6y ago
    She was not elected by the voters. The voters were told that the winning party's candidate would be the commission president. Now von der Leyen is. She did not run in the election. This is a lot more similar to the electoral college making the losing candidate president than people want to admit. We elected the parliament under the impression that the MEPs would then elect the candidate of the party that got the most votes. Then, they didn't. The EU is not very democratic and if we don't fix that, we will lose it. And that is the last thing I want. I want the EU to succeed.
syntaxing 6y ago
I know this is a heated topic but I really don’t understand what the other options are. Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. I’m not sure how to decouple or balance the freedom of will as a business, freedom of will as a person and the societal mandate of the majority (which is how democracy works? It’s always about the majority values).
- LoSboccacc 6y ago
  > what the other options are add political views into the list of non-discrimination laws and let the courts decide, if it's important enough to have to be legislated, that's the closes framework upon which to model it.
- lima 6y ago
  > Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. That's what judges and courts are for. Neither government nor platforms should be able to make these decisions unilaterally.
  - johntb86 6y ago
    Judges and courts are part of the government. In particular, they apply laws (including the constitution) that were written by the government.
    - lima 6y ago
      Yes, but that's not the government dictating something.
      - myrryr 6y ago
        It is, if the government bans fact checking because they don't like it, then that IS the government dictating something. This last year SHOULD be a warning on why government control is a bad plan, do you want each government just outright banning stuff from the other side? Because that is the path which is before you.
jively 6y ago
This is the same issue that faces newspapers, publishers and TV stations. At some point the scale of reach and influence come into conflict with public policy and governance. Newspapers are horribly regulated and most TV stations can say what they like within reason - especially in the US where being fair and balanced is no longer a requirement to run a news service. This jurisdictional problem affects all media and isn't just limited to social platforms. The difference with TV and Newspapers is that they can have their licenses revoked. So there is a degree of power wielded by the government over what is acceptable locally. In contrast, social media infringes on sovereign power by existing and influencing on a global scale without being regulated on a local one. A great example is name suppression during trials, it might be illegal for a newspaper in France to publish a name, but that doesn't stop one in the UK from doing it, and because the paper has a website, that foreign paper inadvertently breaks local law in France because anyone can look it up, but it can't be held accountable. Sovereignty and global digital media do not intersect well without an interface - and that just doesn't exist. Expect more balkanisation of the Internet in the future as govts take back some control over media within their borders. And no, I'm not advocating for dictator-like suppression of free-speech, but a mechanism of accountability for foreign firms breaking local laws. It's a shame that the real-world example has to be Trump, if this had happened to Malala, or Thunberg, or the Pope, the advocacy for oversight and accountability would be a lot easier to digest.
- ozim 6y ago
  Balkanisation of the internet is a feature not a bug and those companies are already too big for too long.
sto_hristo 6y ago
This is so funny. It's like two people in a sword fight. But the sword handles are actual blades as well. So whenever someone draws his sword to cut the opponent, he also cuts himself. What a way to kick off 2020 vol. 2
jti107 6y ago
Twitter is a private company enforcing their terms of service. They are not required to give you a platform to express your speech.
- pyrale 6y ago
  > Twitter is a private company enforcing their terms of service. Being a private company has never meant you're allowed to rule as you wish on your turf. I believe the history of company towns in the US provides plenty of reasons for that. While platforms can't really be compared to company towns, social networks now constitute an essential part of where public discourse happens, and I don't believe it would be too hard for Europe to make a case that public interest requires regulation and oversight.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- golemiprague 6y ago
  That's exactly what they are trying to change, the rules that applied to twitter like private companies and rightfully so. Nobody claims that what they did was illegal, but they want to make it illegal, the same way discrimination based on race became illegal after years it was legal.
shimonabi 6y ago
The EU would be the first to ban all discussion by its critics. I'm paying taxes so that they can daily serve me Youtube and Twitter ads of how wonderful the EU is. I can't imagine such propaganda in the USA.
- username90 6y ago
  > I can't imagine such propaganda in the USA. In USA they still make most kids recite this every day in school: > I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
- anoncake 6y ago
  If the EU would like to do so, why hasn't it done so a long time ago?
jbjbjbjb 6y ago
Is it me or have we come full circle on this? I remember a not long ago when internet companies were told they were publishers and liable for their content and then Zuckerberg asking for more regulation. I can’t keep up.
mc32 6y ago
I think the EU understands the precedent this sets. The tech giants have established that if they disagree with something (using their preferred value system), they feel they have the right to take action. Let’s say the an EU minister proposes something that’s antithetical to US principles but is lawful in the EU, now tech giants feel emboldened with the right to take action _unilaterally_ without the right to an appeal. I believe this is what the EU fears and wants to avoid.
- op00to 6y ago
  If the EU doesn’t like it, they should make their own platform. This isn’t a public park, we are talking about privately owned property.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Sure but the EU, like China, like Russia are different jurisdictions with different laws. Their countries, their rules.
  - wolco5 6y ago
    The point is to regulate social media for European citizens. They set the rules. If facebook or twitter cannot follow them they will pull out of that market allowing space for a local platform to take over.
    - zdragnar 6y ago
      It would be interesting to see how that pans out for social media, since they tried with Google News and that, if I was correctly informed, hurt local publishers rather than helped.
      - agiroth 6y ago
        In the short term, sure it would. If you tear up one field in the middle of planting and plant another, it'll hurt short term; 10 years later it'll be a funny story. Markets love a vacuum and it would be an opportunity for local players to dive in.
zmmmmm 6y ago
It's hard to overlook that the political class is suddenly up in arms about this primarily because they suddenly perceive themselves as being under threat from it. Ordinary individuals and businesses have had to deal with the hegemony of the platforms for a long time and it hasn't really mattered until now. I fear the outcome of this is going to be that it translates into massive regulatory overreach and splitting up of companies instead of what would be healthy - encourage competition through enforcing open standards and mandating interoperability and sharing of personal data. Those things would go a lot further to ensuring actual free speech as well as creating a healthier internet at the same time.
- mc32 6y ago
  I think one big issue is the federal trade commission has been too shy about fighting trusts or anti-competitive behavior because they believe(d) tech is different. They allowed FB and Google to gobble up competitors unimpeded. Amazon is another. Their integration and breadth are a threat to businesses and consumers alike but we’re too busy enjoying next day deliveries to care. You ask for competition but these behemoths either buy them out or smother them via anti competitive behavior; at that point breaking them up is very palatable.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Even with anti-trust, I think the EU comission is probably correct that social media platforms may need more direct lines of contact with platform regulators in exchange for being larger players, just because of the intrinsic network effects that exist in the space.
    - kolinko 6y ago
      Your preassumption seems to be that centralised networks are somehow unavoidable in tech. I would argue otherwise - both Facebook and Twitter could exist decentralised - it would just be less profitable for the companies.
      - 6y ago
illuminati1911 6y ago
Not too long ago there was an article on CNN about regulating the social media platforms. Author said: "It doesn't really matter whether these platforms are biased towards liberals or conservatives, the real question is why have we given them this power in the first place." That was well said. Too bad after Biden's victory, CNN or no one on the democratic side cared about this anymore. Some surely do, but at least it's not being discussed anymore as much as before. Lots of people ask "But Twitter is a private company, shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they want with their platform?" Well, unless we live in a complete anarcho-capitalism, no they should not. They need to follow the law and laws can be changed to match with the current situation. The core issue is that Twitter, Facebook etc. are defacto information sources and platforms for most people on Earth. These companies are managed by radical leftists in Califonia and when they start to decide what information should be visible and what information should not be visible, they create an existential threat to democracies and societies all around the world as well as freedom of speech, politics, religion etc. Government/Union regulation is not the solution either, but better than this.
dan-robertson 6y ago
Let’s observe the rest of the quotation in the headline: ... key decisions alone “without any supervision, without any accountability, and without any sort of dialogue or transparency for the kind of decisions that they’re taking.” I don’t know what the content of the bill in question is, though I would guess it is well meaning while somewhat missing the mark. I don’t think the statement is particularly objectionable. I feel like dialogue and transparency and accountability are pretty good things to have. But maybe dialogue and accountability are really just ways for politicians to have these platforms bend to their will. To me, it still feels better than these issues being decided as part of @jack’s part-time journey of self discovery[1]. It seems to be less extreme than requirements that certain broadcasters produce balanced coverage or that banks do not decide loans based on protected characteristics. I sympathise with the argument that private companies should be allowed to do what they like within the bounds of whatever contract they have with their users. But Twitter and Facebook position themselves as quasi-public spaces welcome to all, and I think if you’re going to act more like a (classical) forum, you might need to be treated by the law like one. In the U.K. if you set up a path open to the public across your back garden and leave it accessible for long enough and consistently enough then it will become a public right of way and you’ll have to keep it open and accessible. [1] there’s two other arguments here: one is that it’s a savvy political calculation to reduce the threat of legislation from democrats. The other is that it’s due to growing pressure from employees. I think I’m not cynical enough to believe the first alternative—Twitter seemed to be trying to act in the public interest after it was obvious who would win Georgia and before putting trump in Twitter jail, and if they want to curry favour with the new regime, why not make it obvious? I find the second alternative quite compelling but this is countered by the relative inaction for the past 5 years and the fact that it seems these companies are rarely subjected to more employee pressure than seeing a few memes being made about how awfully they are behaving. But maybe Twitter employees saw Twitter as appropriately trying to act as a public forum and we’re satisfied with the status quo until the events in the capitol.
eudajmonia 6y ago
In an internet ruled world, were mass communication was now possible, existed a company who became so powerful that the product in which they developed was treated as important as a telephone, electricity, or the internet itself. As its power and influence grew, it aligned itself politically and ideologically. Those influences meant that individuals who expressed beliefs contrarian to those aligned with the organisation were met with digital ostracism. At first it was just normal individuals, but as time went on even world leaders were having their communications silenced or interfered with. Those who were on the receiving end of this censorship were often forced to form alternative means of communication, but often it was the case that these powerful groups colluded to ensure this was not possible. What does it mean when the only objective voice to comment on matters originating within the borders of the USA comes from outside of those borders. Silicon Valley has become so powerful and moneyed that they believe they are supra government. Tristan Harris comments that the laws that are designed to protect us, don't exist within the realms of social media.
mikkergp 6y ago
This is a mess. Something I just thought about, there’s been a lot of talk about the US regulating the social networks, but will there be first amendment issues if the US tries to create rules or laws for how social networks can regulate communication? Seems like it might be a catch 22
- grej 6y ago
  There will absolutely be, but at least then restriction of speech in the public square will be driven by some sort of legal process. Not everything is subject to first amendment protections, and inciting riots clearly falls into the category that isn’t. The danger is that almost any difficult decision has some kind of danger associated with it. Disagree with Covid restrictions ? Dangerous. Challenge the efficacy of a vaccine? Dangerous. But I think we’d be better off if the decisions on takedowns and censorship of those positions were legislated in courts of law that yield clear guidance, not decided arbitrarily by a select few members of an oligopoly.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
amai 6y ago
They should create state owned platforms for the public as a competition to the private ones. But instead they will just produce so many regulations that only the biggest companies can follow all these messy rules. This will in effect prevent any competition for the biggest companies by smaller companies making the situation worse for everyone.
julianmarq 6y ago
I'm not really surprised that governments (or similar, such as the EU) are starting to become suspicious of the issue that private companies—who primarily profit off their users' data—have somehow anointed themselves as arbiters of speech. It should have happened sooner, really. Hopefully this leads into ways to foster innovation (such as with decentralized networks) and competition, to break these giants' monopolies on the flow of information.

277 points by sampo 6y ago

You really have to walk a censorship tight rope as a social media. You need to remove content that targets minorities and hate speech or face consequence, but only when it applies to the bottom 99% of society - apparently. The fact that the EU seems to want control over who gets to express themselves freely, is even more troubling than the inconsistent rules applies by the media themselves.

disgrunt 6y ago
Suddenly it is very easy for the powers that be to see the threat these platforms pose. Deplatform little people? Fine with us. Deplatform a head of state? Can't have that! Facebook, Twitter, et al are going to regret the pandora's box of unintended consequences they just opened up with this move.
- Traster 6y ago
  Frankly, facebook, twitter et al. really didn't have much choice. They've been as tolerant as they can be. It was parler that screwed things up. It was meant to be a right wing equivalent to the left wing social media companies (who, coincidentally, are incredibly anti-union, anti-corporate tax, and anti-workers right, or as was previously known incredibly right wing). Instead they produced a platform that was rampant with death threats, resulting in the only (overtly) right wing platform collapsing.
Talanes 6y ago
Exactly this. The problem lies in the power to control expression lying in too few hands. Just having the same media system, but with the government directing who they ban is just passing the buck.
- ortusdux 6y ago
  I've been wondering how much of all this is an (over?)reaction to the threat of the repeal of section 230. How many of the people making these decisions have reciently had meetings with legal where they learn what changes they would need to make to not risk lawsuits. Allowing governmental oversight, with legal protection, would sound pretty good in comparison.
  - loopz 6y ago
    We clearly need to understand what rules and algorithms are OK, what are their side-effects and potential for abuse. To get governments into moderation business sounds like an idea that simply won't scale. We already got laws to cover the legal aspects.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
boplicity 6y ago
I've run a niche "social media" site for 12 years. There is no tightrope. The problem is that these large platforms want the benefits of scale, without being responsible for dealing with the problems of scale. It is imminently possible to build a thriving social media site that enforces standards of behavior. HN is a good example. However, it is work to actually enforce those standards. It takes leadership. Facebook, Twitter, etc, are not interested in providing that type of leadership, and would likely require both a huge economic investment, and a significant change in business strategy.
- majormajor 6y ago
  What would happen if Trump was on your site and constantly violated your standards of behaviour?
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Can't speak for the grandparent, but here he'd be warned several times, then banned.
    - njharman 6y ago
      The point is who gets to decide the standards of behavior? There are tons of laws restricting what standards can be. Fair housing act. Education, phone service are examples of things that can’t be arbitrarily denied because people providing disagree with who you are, what you belief, or what you do (excepting illegal activity). Many argue the Internet and some of these services should be added to that list.
- mongol 6y ago
  Exactly this. They want both control, and ability to wash their hands, while running their operations at scale. There is the famous saying, "time, quality and cost, choose two". There is a similar "social media law" I believe, that is yet to be stated, but where scale is one parameter.

andrewstuart 6y ago

I'm left wing but I despair for the future of the left. If the right had control of the tech companies it would have removed left content years ago and never blinked or even thought twice about it. The right never agonises over its own strong decisions, whereas the left, if it takes strong action , wrings its hands in agony about whether it has done the correct thing or not. That's why in the long run the right will beat the left because it is utterly shameless in taken any action it can to assert power, whilst the left is reluctant to take any strong action. The left scores a knockdown on the right via social media restriction, but soon enough, the left will offer a hand to help the right back up so they can win the fight.

loxs 6y ago
The sad thing is that this is exactly how the right sees the actions of the left. and it's even worse, as they (the left) are now winning. Their eyes are not blinking - they don't care about freedom of speech or fair game. In the long run, both sides start to see this modus operandi as completely normal. Censorship and vengeance to the other side are completely acceptable. As a libertarian, I am utterly horrified.
- j_walter 6y ago
  This. We don't have civil discourse anymore...people just yell and call people names. You don't like what the other person says they are a "libtard"...or a "racist". You don't like what they are doing online, get them kicked off or dox them to your friends. Justify online bullying like it's a sport. Now it's escalated to not just banning them from social media...but a coordinated effort to destroy the alternative platform they had.
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    When did speaking truth to power become "bullying"? And anyway, removing those who spew violent rhetoric is how civility is restored. The fact that the response to Twitter bans is so violent proves somebody needed to be silenced.

FrameworkFred 6y ago

I see the argument the commission is making, but when it comes to the question of inciting violence on privately owned systems, is it really the right idea to move it to some sort of public committee when the target is "too big to censor?"

orange_tee 6y ago
Remember that Facebook and Twitter only acted after the fact. For them, Trump was too big to censor too. They only took action days before he is out of office when it was guaranteed he would leave.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tsherr 6y ago
  FB and Twitter didn't deplatform Trump because he was a nasty bastard who was inciting revolt. They did it because the Democrats won and they want to suck up.
  - orange_tee 6y ago
    Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
  - azernik 6y ago
    They didn't deplatform him until he crossed a line in terms of violence; they didn't deplatform him right after the presidential or even the Georgia races were called.
- FrameworkFred 6y ago
  That's not altogether true. They've been footnoting his posts where there's been a mismatch with reality.

bjeds 6y ago

I'm impressed that the EU is taking action in this case and I hope they also look into the shutdown of Parler under antitrust legislation. Parler was the number one downloaded social media app in the app store after all. According to BBC the most popular accounts on Parler were people like Sean Hannity and Ted Cruz, who each had followers in the millions. Of course Parler had a problem with some - maybe even many - violent people, like the Washington rioters, but it seems to me that the vast majority of Parler users were not violent people, but fairly normal republicans of the kind that are still not banned on Twitter and Facebook (like the two persons I mentioned). Removing the hyperbole on each side, I think it'd be interesting if the EU looked into this to conclude if the shutdown of Parler was ok or not.

africanboy 6y ago
I think EU doesn't have an opinion on Parler, that's a business relationship gone wrong. The leak of the Parler content shows that they were actively moderating the platform to push it on the far right side, using millions of fake accounts with admin privileges. So Amazon terminated their account. The ban of Trump from social networks is a different topic, I don't think Trump has a big fan base in EU, but it's the perfect excuse to demand what many have been advocating for years now: political control of the social network decisions, given that they can influence the public opinion (Facebook admitted today that their platform was used to spread violence in Myanmar) I have personally advocated for putting social network under public scrutiny or close their operations in EU. I am glad that the European Union is finally taking steps in that direction. EDIT: source -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121
- leothecool 6y ago
  > they were actively moderating the platform to push it on the far right side Do you have a source for this? I tried googling it for ~5 minutes, but my google-fu is too weak.
  - africanboy 6y ago
    source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731121

raverbashing 6y ago

Freedom of expression on platforms is important But it absolutely does not matter for a person in a position of power who has dedicated dedicated public information channels Twitter is right, in the same way any journalist has the right to publish or not a statement by the president

proactivesvcs 6y ago

Assuming that a company's terms of service are deemed fair and legal, why would it be "no longer acceptable" to apply them? I couldn't care less how high profile someone is, what public office they hold; if they break the agreement they made with a service provider, they should be subject to the consequences they agreed to. What I would like to see is a company being obliged to enforce its terms of service promptly, and not allow profitable rule-breakers to continue. Especially when their abuse of the service also breaks laws.

BobbyJo 6y ago
I think we need to acknowledge that a lot of what these agreements outline is, to a large degree, subjective. If human language, or expression in general, weren't contextual and up for interpretation, then I think this would be a viable way of looking at things, but that simply isn't the case. So long as there is room for interpretation, and the consequences (politically, economically, etc.) of those interpretations are potentially far reaching, leaving it up to private companies with no oversight isn't a good option.
- majormajor 6y ago
  So you have n companies each applying their own subjective judgement over their own networks, or you have 1 government applying its own subjective judgement over all networks in that country. It's highly unlikely that the latter is more friendly to fringe or extremist views (setting aside whether or not that's a good thing).
  - dimroc 6y ago
    One government is optimistic in this case. This is the EU talking, they'll gladly deliberate for months before any action is taken. Furthermore, wouldn't this worsen an authoritarian or Trump-like scenario? We are expecting the government to moderate itself? Wouldn't a yes man/crony just sit in that seat ala William Barr and let the tweets go unchecked?
    - 6y ago

turbinerneiter 6y ago

I fully agree that these decisions have to be done by democratic institutions. They also have to be very liberal and very careful and erring on the side of not taking things down. My biggest problem however is the EU commission acting like they are a democratic institution. The president of the commission didn't even run in the election. We were promised that the candidate of the winning party would become president of the commission, but then he didn't and they gave us von der Leyen instead, who never really accomplished anything but hiring consultants. And even that she couldn't do right. The whole storming the caption hill thing is also funny in that regard. Now we suddenly defend that place as this important symbolic institution of democracy, and how dare they! But in reality, we all know that the people in there spend most of their time sucking up to their donors to stay in power. And we know that they very, very, very often make decision that favour their donors to the detriment of the ... voters.

jlokier 6y ago
I think your comment gives the misleading impression Von der Leyen was not elected at all. So for readers who may not know the system: Von der Leyen's appointment, and the EU Commission, were both subject to approval votes by MEPs of the EU Parliament, who are elected by EU citizens in all member countries using proportional representation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_der_Leyen_Commission#Election_and_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_der_Leyen_Commission#Elect... > On 16 July 2019, European Parliament took a vote on the proposal by the European Council and elected Von der Leyen with 383 votes (374 votes needed). > The Commission was approved by European Parliament on 27 November 2019, receiving 461 votes, with 157 against and 89 abstentions.
- turbinerneiter 6y ago
  She was not elected by the voters. The voters were told that the winning party's candidate would be the commission president. Now von der Leyen is. She did not run in the election. This is a lot more similar to the electoral college making the losing candidate president than people want to admit. We elected the parliament under the impression that the MEPs would then elect the candidate of the party that got the most votes. Then, they didn't. The EU is not very democratic and if we don't fix that, we will lose it. And that is the last thing I want. I want the EU to succeed.

syntaxing 6y ago

I know this is a heated topic but I really don’t understand what the other options are. Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. I’m not sure how to decouple or balance the freedom of will as a business, freedom of will as a person and the societal mandate of the majority (which is how democracy works? It’s always about the majority values).

LoSboccacc 6y ago
> what the other options are add political views into the list of non-discrimination laws and let the courts decide, if it's important enough to have to be legislated, that's the closes framework upon which to model it.
lima 6y ago
> Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. That's what judges and courts are for. Neither government nor platforms should be able to make these decisions unilaterally.
- johntb86 6y ago
  Judges and courts are part of the government. In particular, they apply laws (including the constitution) that were written by the government.
  - lima 6y ago
    Yes, but that's not the government dictating something.
    - myrryr 6y ago
      It is, if the government bans fact checking because they don't like it, then that IS the government dictating something. This last year SHOULD be a warning on why government control is a bad plan, do you want each government just outright banning stuff from the other side? Because that is the path which is before you.

jively 6y ago

This is the same issue that faces newspapers, publishers and TV stations. At some point the scale of reach and influence come into conflict with public policy and governance. Newspapers are horribly regulated and most TV stations can say what they like within reason - especially in the US where being fair and balanced is no longer a requirement to run a news service. This jurisdictional problem affects all media and isn't just limited to social platforms. The difference with TV and Newspapers is that they can have their licenses revoked. So there is a degree of power wielded by the government over what is acceptable locally. In contrast, social media infringes on sovereign power by existing and influencing on a global scale without being regulated on a local one. A great example is name suppression during trials, it might be illegal for a newspaper in France to publish a name, but that doesn't stop one in the UK from doing it, and because the paper has a website, that foreign paper inadvertently breaks local law in France because anyone can look it up, but it can't be held accountable. Sovereignty and global digital media do not intersect well without an interface - and that just doesn't exist. Expect more balkanisation of the Internet in the future as govts take back some control over media within their borders. And no, I'm not advocating for dictator-like suppression of free-speech, but a mechanism of accountability for foreign firms breaking local laws. It's a shame that the real-world example has to be Trump, if this had happened to Malala, or Thunberg, or the Pope, the advocacy for oversight and accountability would be a lot easier to digest.

ozim 6y ago
Balkanisation of the internet is a feature not a bug and those companies are already too big for too long.

sto_hristo 6y ago

This is so funny. It's like two people in a sword fight. But the sword handles are actual blades as well. So whenever someone draws his sword to cut the opponent, he also cuts himself. What a way to kick off 2020 vol. 2

jti107 6y ago

Twitter is a private company enforcing their terms of service. They are not required to give you a platform to express your speech.

pyrale 6y ago
> Twitter is a private company enforcing their terms of service. Being a private company has never meant you're allowed to rule as you wish on your turf. I believe the history of company towns in the US provides plenty of reasons for that. While platforms can't really be compared to company towns, social networks now constitute an essential part of where public discourse happens, and I don't believe it would be too hard for Europe to make a case that public interest requires regulation and oversight.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
golemiprague 6y ago
That's exactly what they are trying to change, the rules that applied to twitter like private companies and rightfully so. Nobody claims that what they did was illegal, but they want to make it illegal, the same way discrimination based on race became illegal after years it was legal.

shimonabi 6y ago

The EU would be the first to ban all discussion by its critics. I'm paying taxes so that they can daily serve me Youtube and Twitter ads of how wonderful the EU is. I can't imagine such propaganda in the USA.

username90 6y ago
> I can't imagine such propaganda in the USA. In USA they still make most kids recite this every day in school: > I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
anoncake 6y ago
If the EU would like to do so, why hasn't it done so a long time ago?

jbjbjbjb 6y ago

Is it me or have we come full circle on this? I remember a not long ago when internet companies were told they were publishers and liable for their content and then Zuckerberg asking for more regulation. I can’t keep up.

mc32 6y ago

I think the EU understands the precedent this sets. The tech giants have established that if they disagree with something (using their preferred value system), they feel they have the right to take action. Let’s say the an EU minister proposes something that’s antithetical to US principles but is lawful in the EU, now tech giants feel emboldened with the right to take action _unilaterally_ without the right to an appeal. I believe this is what the EU fears and wants to avoid.

op00to 6y ago
If the EU doesn’t like it, they should make their own platform. This isn’t a public park, we are talking about privately owned property.
- mc32 6y ago
  Sure but the EU, like China, like Russia are different jurisdictions with different laws. Their countries, their rules.
- wolco5 6y ago
  The point is to regulate social media for European citizens. They set the rules. If facebook or twitter cannot follow them they will pull out of that market allowing space for a local platform to take over.
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    It would be interesting to see how that pans out for social media, since they tried with Google News and that, if I was correctly informed, hurt local publishers rather than helped.
    - agiroth 6y ago
      In the short term, sure it would. If you tear up one field in the middle of planting and plant another, it'll hurt short term; 10 years later it'll be a funny story. Markets love a vacuum and it would be an opportunity for local players to dive in.

zmmmmm 6y ago

It's hard to overlook that the political class is suddenly up in arms about this primarily because they suddenly perceive themselves as being under threat from it. Ordinary individuals and businesses have had to deal with the hegemony of the platforms for a long time and it hasn't really mattered until now. I fear the outcome of this is going to be that it translates into massive regulatory overreach and splitting up of companies instead of what would be healthy - encourage competition through enforcing open standards and mandating interoperability and sharing of personal data. Those things would go a lot further to ensuring actual free speech as well as creating a healthier internet at the same time.

mc32 6y ago
I think one big issue is the federal trade commission has been too shy about fighting trusts or anti-competitive behavior because they believe(d) tech is different. They allowed FB and Google to gobble up competitors unimpeded. Amazon is another. Their integration and breadth are a threat to businesses and consumers alike but we’re too busy enjoying next day deliveries to care. You ask for competition but these behemoths either buy them out or smother them via anti competitive behavior; at that point breaking them up is very palatable.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Even with anti-trust, I think the EU comission is probably correct that social media platforms may need more direct lines of contact with platform regulators in exchange for being larger players, just because of the intrinsic network effects that exist in the space.
  - kolinko 6y ago
    Your preassumption seems to be that centralised networks are somehow unavoidable in tech. I would argue otherwise - both Facebook and Twitter could exist decentralised - it would just be less profitable for the companies.
    - 6y ago

illuminati1911 6y ago

Not too long ago there was an article on CNN about regulating the social media platforms. Author said: "It doesn't really matter whether these platforms are biased towards liberals or conservatives, the real question is why have we given them this power in the first place." That was well said. Too bad after Biden's victory, CNN or no one on the democratic side cared about this anymore. Some surely do, but at least it's not being discussed anymore as much as before. Lots of people ask "But Twitter is a private company, shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they want with their platform?" Well, unless we live in a complete anarcho-capitalism, no they should not. They need to follow the law and laws can be changed to match with the current situation. The core issue is that Twitter, Facebook etc. are defacto information sources and platforms for most people on Earth. These companies are managed by radical leftists in Califonia and when they start to decide what information should be visible and what information should not be visible, they create an existential threat to democracies and societies all around the world as well as freedom of speech, politics, religion etc. Government/Union regulation is not the solution either, but better than this.

dan-robertson 6y ago

Let’s observe the rest of the quotation in the headline: ... key decisions alone “without any supervision, without any accountability, and without any sort of dialogue or transparency for the kind of decisions that they’re taking.” I don’t know what the content of the bill in question is, though I would guess it is well meaning while somewhat missing the mark. I don’t think the statement is particularly objectionable. I feel like dialogue and transparency and accountability are pretty good things to have. But maybe dialogue and accountability are really just ways for politicians to have these platforms bend to their will. To me, it still feels better than these issues being decided as part of @jack’s part-time journey of self discovery[1]. It seems to be less extreme than requirements that certain broadcasters produce balanced coverage or that banks do not decide loans based on protected characteristics. I sympathise with the argument that private companies should be allowed to do what they like within the bounds of whatever contract they have with their users. But Twitter and Facebook position themselves as quasi-public spaces welcome to all, and I think if you’re going to act more like a (classical) forum, you might need to be treated by the law like one. In the U.K. if you set up a path open to the public across your back garden and leave it accessible for long enough and consistently enough then it will become a public right of way and you’ll have to keep it open and accessible. [1] there’s two other arguments here: one is that it’s a savvy political calculation to reduce the threat of legislation from democrats. The other is that it’s due to growing pressure from employees. I think I’m not cynical enough to believe the first alternative—Twitter seemed to be trying to act in the public interest after it was obvious who would win Georgia and before putting trump in Twitter jail, and if they want to curry favour with the new regime, why not make it obvious? I find the second alternative quite compelling but this is countered by the relative inaction for the past 5 years and the fact that it seems these companies are rarely subjected to more employee pressure than seeing a few memes being made about how awfully they are behaving. But maybe Twitter employees saw Twitter as appropriately trying to act as a public forum and we’re satisfied with the status quo until the events in the capitol.

eudajmonia 6y ago

In an internet ruled world, were mass communication was now possible, existed a company who became so powerful that the product in which they developed was treated as important as a telephone, electricity, or the internet itself. As its power and influence grew, it aligned itself politically and ideologically. Those influences meant that individuals who expressed beliefs contrarian to those aligned with the organisation were met with digital ostracism. At first it was just normal individuals, but as time went on even world leaders were having their communications silenced or interfered with. Those who were on the receiving end of this censorship were often forced to form alternative means of communication, but often it was the case that these powerful groups colluded to ensure this was not possible. What does it mean when the only objective voice to comment on matters originating within the borders of the USA comes from outside of those borders. Silicon Valley has become so powerful and moneyed that they believe they are supra government. Tristan Harris comments that the laws that are designed to protect us, don't exist within the realms of social media.

mikkergp 6y ago

This is a mess. Something I just thought about, there’s been a lot of talk about the US regulating the social networks, but will there be first amendment issues if the US tries to create rules or laws for how social networks can regulate communication? Seems like it might be a catch 22

grej 6y ago
There will absolutely be, but at least then restriction of speech in the public square will be driven by some sort of legal process. Not everything is subject to first amendment protections, and inciting riots clearly falls into the category that isn’t. The danger is that almost any difficult decision has some kind of danger associated with it. Disagree with Covid restrictions ? Dangerous. Challenge the efficacy of a vaccine? Dangerous. But I think we’d be better off if the decisions on takedowns and censorship of those positions were legislated in courts of law that yield clear guidance, not decided arbitrarily by a select few members of an oligopoly.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

amai 6y ago

They should create state owned platforms for the public as a competition to the private ones. But instead they will just produce so many regulations that only the biggest companies can follow all these messy rules. This will in effect prevent any competition for the biggest companies by smaller companies making the situation worse for everyone.

julianmarq 6y ago

I'm not really surprised that governments (or similar, such as the EU) are starting to become suspicious of the issue that private companies—who primarily profit off their users' data—have somehow anointed themselves as arbiters of speech. It should have happened sooner, really. Hopefully this leads into ways to foster innovation (such as with decentralized networks) and competition, to break these giants' monopolies on the flow of information.