4 ms·

We don't hold social media companies accountable for things that are posted there because then they will perform a cost/benefit analysis on the risk and liabili

We don't hold social media companies accountable for things that are posted there because then they will perform a cost/benefit analysis on the risk and liability of comment sections, free speech, posting news and political content, and most of them will engage in the most draconian reduction of free speech online in the internets history. Why would Facebook let you talk about politics on their platform if you could defame a politician or celebrity and Facebook was on the hook? What's cheaper, banning you and/or algorithmically controlling your speech, or paying major dollars to an employee in a high cost of living who wants deep benefits just to review your speech. I mean they'd need law staff reviewing every potentially defamatory post. They'd honestly need lawyers reviewing every post made on social media, or else they could be sued into oblivion. I can't imagine how any company could run a business allowing people to speak anything remotely close to freely online if that business is financially liable for the truth and veracity of every statement made. What would happen is social media would turn into a situation where the only people allowed to post would be the Blue Checkmarks -- those who the service verifies as being Goodthinkers who won't create liability, and who may have signed an agreement with the company absolving the company of that liability. I just can't imagine how free speech could survive online if the big guy could make the newspaper pay for a letter to the editor.

zentiggr 5y ago
Because once FB/Twitter/every other large forum limits themselves to only doupleplusgoodposters, there will be a few billion people looking for somewhere else that they can speak, and other services will arise. And we'll finally see who the blessed of the FB or Twitter or <service> truly are.
- criley2 5y ago
  Those services will not be able to afford the lawsuits. That's the point. New services will be one of two things: 1) Pirate media in open and flagrant violation of the legal requirement to ensure the legality and veracity of all user content. In which case the government will shut it down or admit non-enforcement of the bogus law. 2) Or they are soon-to-be-former media sued into oblivion because someone lied on their service in a manner which the service is liable for. The service either vets the statements or pays the damages. This is before we consider the implications of a hostile actor using this mechanism to tank businesses. Write bots to spread misinformation, lies and slander. What are you going to do, sue some unknown operator ten thousand miles away? Good luck. The service will pay damages for it and they'll keep paying until they restrict free speech sufficiently.
moksly 5y ago
I remember the internet before social media. I don’t think we would be worse of if Facebook prevented people from commenting on posts, I think we would be better of. What you are describing is the dream scenario for me. It’s not free speech when it has no consequences, because the consequence of total free speech has proven to make every reasonable voice leave. This is exactly why the comments on political social media posts are so terrible that neither you or I bother to read them.

zentiggr 5y ago

Because once FB/Twitter/every other large forum limits themselves to only doupleplusgoodposters, there will be a few billion people looking for somewhere else that they can speak, and other services will arise. And we'll finally see who the blessed of the FB or Twitter or <service> truly are.

criley2 5y ago
Those services will not be able to afford the lawsuits. That's the point. New services will be one of two things: 1) Pirate media in open and flagrant violation of the legal requirement to ensure the legality and veracity of all user content. In which case the government will shut it down or admit non-enforcement of the bogus law. 2) Or they are soon-to-be-former media sued into oblivion because someone lied on their service in a manner which the service is liable for. The service either vets the statements or pays the damages. This is before we consider the implications of a hostile actor using this mechanism to tank businesses. Write bots to spread misinformation, lies and slander. What are you going to do, sue some unknown operator ten thousand miles away? Good luck. The service will pay damages for it and they'll keep paying until they restrict free speech sufficiently.

moksly 5y ago

I remember the internet before social media. I don’t think we would be worse of if Facebook prevented people from commenting on posts, I think we would be better of. What you are describing is the dream scenario for me. It’s not free speech when it has no consequences, because the consequence of total free speech has proven to make every reasonable voice leave. This is exactly why the comments on political social media posts are so terrible that neither you or I bother to read them.