6 ms·

> What conservatives really seem to want, meanwhile, is something more like a version of the “fairness doctrine” adapted for social media. (Ignore the fact that

> What conservatives really seem to want, meanwhile, is something more like a version of the “fairness doctrine” adapted for social media. (Ignore the fact that conservatives used to insist that the fairness doctrine was an unconstitutional left-wing conspiracy to destroy talk radio). This is not a good faith argument, and it's made worse by the fact that (as others have mentioned) Tim Wu coined the concept of net neutrality. Free speech advocates and conservatives want social media to be a dumb pipe that doesn't discriminate on content, much like other internet services. Tim is uncharitably misrepresenting their position here.

atoav 6y ago
A dumb pipe within which real world law on speech applies? Or not? If I post defamatory stuff on my website I can be sued. If I do the same on your website, you can be sued unless you fall under that 230 regulation. So this is the choice between "social media is liable for what you say and will therefore censor you" and between "you are liable and can therefore be sued". The option "nobody can get sued" doesn't exist, because although there is free speech, there are limits to it (which get breached on a few times a minute on big platforms). I am not saying whether that is a good thing or not, that is just the current state of affairs. And as the author stated: if you are basing what you say on the truth you might be able to say a lot more (than e.g. if you are spouting weaponized propaganda which is factualy wrong)
earthscienceman 6y ago
Wait. Are you sincerely making the argument that conservatives would like the social networks to become public utilities? (following net neutrality) We are living in weird times if a good faith argument really involves assuming conservatives want to make a class of businesses part of the public sector. Something seems off with your reasoning, but if you're right then I'm all about it!
- thoughtstheseus 6y ago
  Utilities can and are run for profit, they’re regulated though and market standards are set.
- ipaddr 6y ago
  Take the internet fiber cable that allows a person to connect as an example. Public utilities exist in some countries to provide that. In the US a private company will usually lay the cable. In both cases when someone signs up for a service who they voted for doesn't affect there service. In social media's case it does change the experience Asking for a neutral playing field is fair. Facebook delivering that in a highly political environment where a lack of censorship scares one side is impossible. We are heading from free speech, into right speech but we are going to end up with no speech as people tune out.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 8note 6y ago
  Conservatives are much more interested in culture wars than economic issues. By moving these companies from private to public sector, conservatives can use their gerrymandering and voter suppression power to control the companies, whereas under the more market capitalist approach, they follow closer to the demographic majority views
spaced-out 6y ago
> Free speech advocates and conservatives want social media to be a dumb pipe that doesn't discriminate on content, much like other internet services. Do that and soon every post will be about diet pills or AMAZING OFFER MAKE $$$$$ FROM YOUR COMPUTER CLICK HERE!!!!
- me2021yuh 6y ago
  We already have that with email and found solutions to it and the same solutions could apply (readers choose their own spam filtering). The hard problems are where something might or might not be illegal and people strongly disagree. Thats where 230 comes in and it suggests to me that platforms under its protection shouldn't censor unless directed by law enforcement .. The fact that they do is mysterious to me.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Behind the scenes email providers blackhole a huge amount of traffic that never touches even the spam inbox of their users. This is of course good, because it is what the users want. Social media companies likewise curate what content they allow to remain up because they want to please their users.
  - 8note 6y ago
    Spam filtering seems like a similar moderation issue? People want a right to an audience, and spam filters limit that right
    - Const-me 6y ago
      Not quite. Spam filters are controlled by, and acting on behalf of, end users who would be receiving the spam. When people are unhappy about their spam filtering, they can adjust or turn off these filters, or migrate to another e-mail provider (keeping all the e-mails, and ability to communicate with the same people). The issue with modern social media, they implement censorship no one asked for, in a completely opaque way, and don't even support user migration.

atoav 6y ago

A dumb pipe within which real world law on speech applies? Or not? If I post defamatory stuff on my website I can be sued. If I do the same on your website, you can be sued unless you fall under that 230 regulation. So this is the choice between "social media is liable for what you say and will therefore censor you" and between "you are liable and can therefore be sued". The option "nobody can get sued" doesn't exist, because although there is free speech, there are limits to it (which get breached on a few times a minute on big platforms). I am not saying whether that is a good thing or not, that is just the current state of affairs. And as the author stated: if you are basing what you say on the truth you might be able to say a lot more (than e.g. if you are spouting weaponized propaganda which is factualy wrong)

earthscienceman 6y ago

Wait. Are you sincerely making the argument that conservatives would like the social networks to become public utilities? (following net neutrality) We are living in weird times if a good faith argument really involves assuming conservatives want to make a class of businesses part of the public sector. Something seems off with your reasoning, but if you're right then I'm all about it!

thoughtstheseus 6y ago
Utilities can and are run for profit, they’re regulated though and market standards are set.
ipaddr 6y ago
Take the internet fiber cable that allows a person to connect as an example. Public utilities exist in some countries to provide that. In the US a private company will usually lay the cable. In both cases when someone signs up for a service who they voted for doesn't affect there service. In social media's case it does change the experience Asking for a neutral playing field is fair. Facebook delivering that in a highly political environment where a lack of censorship scares one side is impossible. We are heading from free speech, into right speech but we are going to end up with no speech as people tune out.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
8note 6y ago
Conservatives are much more interested in culture wars than economic issues. By moving these companies from private to public sector, conservatives can use their gerrymandering and voter suppression power to control the companies, whereas under the more market capitalist approach, they follow closer to the demographic majority views

spaced-out 6y ago

> Free speech advocates and conservatives want social media to be a dumb pipe that doesn't discriminate on content, much like other internet services. Do that and soon every post will be about diet pills or AMAZING OFFER MAKE $$$$$ FROM YOUR COMPUTER CLICK HERE!!!!

me2021yuh 6y ago
We already have that with email and found solutions to it and the same solutions could apply (readers choose their own spam filtering). The hard problems are where something might or might not be illegal and people strongly disagree. Thats where 230 comes in and it suggests to me that platforms under its protection shouldn't censor unless directed by law enforcement .. The fact that they do is mysterious to me.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  Behind the scenes email providers blackhole a huge amount of traffic that never touches even the spam inbox of their users. This is of course good, because it is what the users want. Social media companies likewise curate what content they allow to remain up because they want to please their users.
- 8note 6y ago
  Spam filtering seems like a similar moderation issue? People want a right to an audience, and spam filters limit that right
  - Const-me 6y ago
    Not quite. Spam filters are controlled by, and acting on behalf of, end users who would be receiving the spam. When people are unhappy about their spam filtering, they can adjust or turn off these filters, or migrate to another e-mail provider (keeping all the e-mails, and ability to communicate with the same people). The issue with modern social media, they implement censorship no one asked for, in a completely opaque way, and don't even support user migration.