3 ms·

Big Tech platforms are more and more functioning as utilities, and I believe they should be regulated as such. Actually, any digital platform with user-generat

by d0100 6y ago

Big Tech platforms are more and more functioning as utilities, and I believe they should be regulated as such. Actually, any digital platform with user-generated content should be regulated in such a way that frees platforms from pressures from the government (Section 230) and from social justice (ban bad guy that's not convicted and will have no recourse or penalty expiry)

mullingitover 6y ago
> in such a way that frees platforms from pressures from the government (Section 230) Section 230 does free platforms from pressure from the government. A service provider that is responsible for the content posted by users would have much greater exposure and would be far more likely to censor. People don't understand that 230 is mostly enabling free speech, not stifling it. The anti-230 crowd is like a dog chasing a car. It's all fun and games to chase that car, but what do you think is going to happen when you get what you're chasing?
- d0100 6y ago
  The anti-230 sentiment is just a knee-jerk reaction from people that see an unfair situation and just want to punish the perpetrators. It's a guttural response to unfair treatment. I think that what should be sought is another "Section 231" that makes banning users from platforms must go through the justice system, just like if you wanted to ban someone from the town square. This gives platforms a scapegoat, "the government won't let me", but still allows the platform to do things like not list "bad" people in the "discover" feed and make better mute/ignore features Unilateral and permanent banning just creates more problems
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    More problems for who? Not for the platform. Maybe for the folks who are banned, they lose their free megaphone and have to actually pay to get their opinions heard, which seems like a fine trade off to me. I’m slowly coming around to the idea that getting rid of section 230 would be a good thing overall. Social media platforms shouldn’t be amplifying ideas they think are odious. Why the heck would anybody do that? For money? Would you be willing to spread propaganda that you thought was terrible for money? I sure wouldn’t.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > I think that what should be sought is another "Section 231" that makes banning users from platforms must go through the justice system, just like if you wanted to ban someone from the town square. These platforms aren't remotely the town square. The comparison has been made to them being the shopping mall, and I think it's apt. > Unilateral and permanent banning just creates more problems Creating government red tape when swift action is needed to remove users who violate the rights of others or harm others is not the answer. The latitude service providers are given to remove objectionable content enables the internet to work quite well. From what I've seen, the biggest complaints of censorship are defending the indefensible, and for support of that claim I direct your attention to the evidence Amazon gathered in response to Parler's lawsuit. > This gives platforms a scapegoat, "the government won't let me", but still allows the platform to do things like not list "bad" people in the "discover" feed and make better mute/ignore features If a shop that you're forced to allow in your shopping mall is doing money laundering and arms trafficking, I don't think the answer is 'just remove them from your mall's map while you file a lawsuit against them'.

by d0100 6y ago

mullingitover 6y ago

> in such a way that frees platforms from pressures from the government (Section 230) Section 230 does free platforms from pressure from the government. A service provider that is responsible for the content posted by users would have much greater exposure and would be far more likely to censor. People don't understand that 230 is mostly enabling free speech, not stifling it. The anti-230 crowd is like a dog chasing a car. It's all fun and games to chase that car, but what do you think is going to happen when you get what you're chasing?

d0100 6y ago
The anti-230 sentiment is just a knee-jerk reaction from people that see an unfair situation and just want to punish the perpetrators. It's a guttural response to unfair treatment. I think that what should be sought is another "Section 231" that makes banning users from platforms must go through the justice system, just like if you wanted to ban someone from the town square. This gives platforms a scapegoat, "the government won't let me", but still allows the platform to do things like not list "bad" people in the "discover" feed and make better mute/ignore features Unilateral and permanent banning just creates more problems
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  More problems for who? Not for the platform. Maybe for the folks who are banned, they lose their free megaphone and have to actually pay to get their opinions heard, which seems like a fine trade off to me. I’m slowly coming around to the idea that getting rid of section 230 would be a good thing overall. Social media platforms shouldn’t be amplifying ideas they think are odious. Why the heck would anybody do that? For money? Would you be willing to spread propaganda that you thought was terrible for money? I sure wouldn’t.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > I think that what should be sought is another "Section 231" that makes banning users from platforms must go through the justice system, just like if you wanted to ban someone from the town square. These platforms aren't remotely the town square. The comparison has been made to them being the shopping mall, and I think it's apt. > Unilateral and permanent banning just creates more problems Creating government red tape when swift action is needed to remove users who violate the rights of others or harm others is not the answer. The latitude service providers are given to remove objectionable content enables the internet to work quite well. From what I've seen, the biggest complaints of censorship are defending the indefensible, and for support of that claim I direct your attention to the evidence Amazon gathered in response to Parler's lawsuit. > This gives platforms a scapegoat, "the government won't let me", but still allows the platform to do things like not list "bad" people in the "discover" feed and make better mute/ignore features If a shop that you're forced to allow in your shopping mall is doing money laundering and arms trafficking, I don't think the answer is 'just remove them from your mall's map while you file a lawsuit against them'.