5 ms·

Im worried this would codify fine power for whatever way the political wind blows, which seems to be incremented by increasing the size of payroll particularly

Im worried this would codify fine power for whatever way the political wind blows, which seems to be incremented by increasing the size of payroll particularly at the FTC. Here is an idea for better oversight of big tech that does not involve more regulation: a deacentralized moderation system that replicates the us court system. If something is flagged, then a jury made up of randomly selected users decide if the comment is inciting violence / etc. If 1 user says it does not , then there is no ban/deletion etc. You can iterate many times off that into a system that is scalable, cost effective, descentralized, transparent, and just.

NoodleIncident 6y ago
Aren't you describing Parler's failed attempt at pretending they moderate their content?
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  By definition, if they pretended, it means they were not serious about getting to a solution that the average person would find reasonable Note that it doesnt mean aws or gcp or cnn had to agree, it just means that it really resembled the process that we have for the us court system In fact something well implemented would potentially threaten (and by definition, by attacked by) the twitters fb, aws , etc, because it would become a more reliable predictor of content moderation than what currently exists via ToS. It would effectively obsolte catchall ToS, and decidely be a vote against centralized control We can likely agree that the words "well implemented" and "parler" do not belong in the same sentence
xpe 6y ago
> I'm worried this would codify fine power for whatever way the political wind blows It depends on how the legislation is written, which will determine who makes various decisions and how the decisions are made. Can you tell me about examples of legislation that you think have been done well? And what is your idea of 'well done'? Should I interpret your comment as meaning that you don't like arbitrary changes in political opinion -- that you think legislation should have deeper standards or principles? In the case of social media and speech, what do you think the standards should be? Can you also give an example of legislation that has not been done well.
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  >>> It depends on how the legislation is written, which will determine who makes various decisions and how the decisions are made. --- Given the regulation itself this is not a bipartisan effort (this is different from support bipartisan) >>> Can you tell me about examples of legislation that you think have been done well ---I think the constitution is a sound example. Only the takings clause seems to have some pushback . Another hugely succesful act is U.S. Airline Deregulation Act. This is the only relatively recent act of congress that eliminated an entire US Agency (CAB), which itself makes it a rarity among the rare successes. Sherman act is one that everyone seems to come back to (and generally seems to be underpowered vs abused), the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Internet Tax Freedom Act, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Most acts restricting the power of the federal government tend to enjoy broad support over time. >>>Can you also give an example of legislation that has not been done well. ---No child left behind ACT, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Patriot Act, etc. You can tie together almost all bad laws passed when they are (a) a reaction to specific events and circumstances (b) not bipartisan (c) usually sponsored by a very specific group. Such laws tend to not pass the test of time. The reverse is also true, of course.
  - xpe 6y ago
    > Given the regulation itself this is not a bipartisan effort (this is different from support bipartisan) Would you like to finish the sentence? It is incomplete.
  - xpe 6y ago
    Your comment implicitly defines legislative success in terms of long-running popularity. What is the intended purpose of such a definition? Is it meant to be explanatory? Predictive? Normative? Have you thought about the limitations of such a definition along these three categories? Is this definition an attempt to find a neutral definition of legislative success? Or at least an attempt to find a definition that can be easily measured?
  - xpe 6y ago
    > You can tie together almost all bad laws passed when they are (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... Can you provide detailed support for such a claim?

NoodleIncident 6y ago

Aren't you describing Parler's failed attempt at pretending they moderate their content?

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
By definition, if they pretended, it means they were not serious about getting to a solution that the average person would find reasonable Note that it doesnt mean aws or gcp or cnn had to agree, it just means that it really resembled the process that we have for the us court system In fact something well implemented would potentially threaten (and by definition, by attacked by) the twitters fb, aws , etc, because it would become a more reliable predictor of content moderation than what currently exists via ToS. It would effectively obsolte catchall ToS, and decidely be a vote against centralized control We can likely agree that the words "well implemented" and "parler" do not belong in the same sentence

xpe 6y ago

> I'm worried this would codify fine power for whatever way the political wind blows It depends on how the legislation is written, which will determine who makes various decisions and how the decisions are made. Can you tell me about examples of legislation that you think have been done well? And what is your idea of 'well done'? Should I interpret your comment as meaning that you don't like arbitrary changes in political opinion -- that you think legislation should have deeper standards or principles? In the case of social media and speech, what do you think the standards should be? Can you also give an example of legislation that has not been done well.

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
>>> It depends on how the legislation is written, which will determine who makes various decisions and how the decisions are made. --- Given the regulation itself this is not a bipartisan effort (this is different from support bipartisan) >>> Can you tell me about examples of legislation that you think have been done well ---I think the constitution is a sound example. Only the takings clause seems to have some pushback . Another hugely succesful act is U.S. Airline Deregulation Act. This is the only relatively recent act of congress that eliminated an entire US Agency (CAB), which itself makes it a rarity among the rare successes. Sherman act is one that everyone seems to come back to (and generally seems to be underpowered vs abused), the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Internet Tax Freedom Act, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Most acts restricting the power of the federal government tend to enjoy broad support over time. >>>Can you also give an example of legislation that has not been done well. ---No child left behind ACT, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Patriot Act, etc. You can tie together almost all bad laws passed when they are (a) a reaction to specific events and circumstances (b) not bipartisan (c) usually sponsored by a very specific group. Such laws tend to not pass the test of time. The reverse is also true, of course.
- xpe 6y ago
  > Given the regulation itself this is not a bipartisan effort (this is different from support bipartisan) Would you like to finish the sentence? It is incomplete.
- xpe 6y ago
  Your comment implicitly defines legislative success in terms of long-running popularity. What is the intended purpose of such a definition? Is it meant to be explanatory? Predictive? Normative? Have you thought about the limitations of such a definition along these three categories? Is this definition an attempt to find a neutral definition of legislative success? Or at least an attempt to find a definition that can be easily measured?
- xpe 6y ago
  > You can tie together almost all bad laws passed when they are (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... Can you provide detailed support for such a claim?