6 ms·

> The thing is, people are never going to agree where the line is drawn. True, but I currently trust the line drawn by the law orders of magnitude more than I

> The thing is, people are never going to agree where the line is drawn. True, but I currently trust the line drawn by the law orders of magnitude more than I trust the one drawn by a bunch of faceless reactionaries at a handful of megacorps. Also, theoretically, I can participate in changing the law when it's either insufficient or overbearing. I have zero say in the corporate policies of the day.

silentsea90 5y ago
So user generated fake news is ok, and so is foreign propaganda influencing elections? The law always lags behind what might defame a company(FB is the most recent example), hence the company ends up being proactive. Edit: I don't have strong opinions - just sharing a rational argument for being proactive.
- brandonmenc 5y ago
  No, they're not "ok", but I personally believe that outright censorship is worse. ymmv.
  - silentsea90 5y ago
    It is a hard problem. The Govt pontificates about big tech issues without putting in the effort of making laws. Big tech is forced to anticipate what might defame them or be used by the Govt as ammo to garner public sympathy. It is a delicate balancing act between censorship and freedom. Zuck tried to put the onus on the Govt to define right and wrong, true and false, but to no avail. It is hard to please everybody unfortunately.
    - 3np 5y ago
      I really don’t see the hard part. Just because we consider something to be harmful and negative (like propaganda) doesn’t mean making it illegal is desirable. Even for the things that are illegal, it can be illegal to publish something but legal to provide connectivity services to the offender. Net neutrality is not a delicate balance. Or what’s a tricky edge case you have in mind?
      - silentsea90 5y ago
        I apologize if I missed your point, but in the case of fake news for instance, iiuc, you're arguing that fake news on FB is legal and that FB isn't responsible for such content on their platform. Information warfare is fairly real and potent in how it has weakened US democracy and vaccination efforts recently. Ultimately, arguably, this has real consequences for the economy, national security etc.
        3np 5y ago
        I am not saying that FB is not responsible. I am saying that FB should not have their services blocked by ISPs or government because of fake news on their platform. You're correct in your observation but state-sanctioned censorship is not the solution. In case we're talking around each other; what kind of laws would you like to see put in place?
        silentsea90 5y ago
        Agree with the idea. I don't have strong opinions on solutions here, and don't mind the status quo.
- nine_k 5y ago
  I think the same approach as with spam is best. If you can determine that a particular piece of information belongs to some unpleasant or dangerous category, mark it as that, like a spam filter does, or vaguely how FB does with posts. Importantly, do not remove it unless the law forces you to. Then let users switch between the filtered and unfiltered view, or look at the analog of the "Spam" folder. This allows to study pieces of information that are deemed "controversial" or even "malevolent" and make your own opinion, if you're so inclined. Even more, it could apply several different cultural filters, like "content likely offensive for X", where X is a major religious or cultural group, much the same way as many providers currently mark content as inappropriate for children.
  - smhost 5y ago
    and then there will be a million "Top 10 things the government doesn't want you to know" videos that amplify whatever it was they were trying to censor
    - nine_k 5y ago
      But the point is in not trying to censor.
  - silentsea90 5y ago
    Twitter does add warnings to tweets that are questionable in their claims (anti vax, fake news etc). Is that what you were thinking?
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Better that misguided individuals be free to speak, than misguided self-appointed “fact checkers” silence truth.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  A side note: foreign propaganda is not worse than domestic propaganda. Swarms of dedicated activists using rioting and other violence to achieve political goals (the dictionary definition of terrorism), in collusion with a sympathetic tech industry that suppresses any dissenting thought, is propaganda and it does influence elections. When these companies do things like ban Trump, they are illegally making a campaign contribution without abiding by the laws of campaign finance. When they do things like censor discussions of the lab leak theory, they propagandize the entire world by freeing the CCP of the bare minimum for accountability.
  - silentsea90 5y ago
    I am not a fan of any approach here and largely agree with you. Media censorship did very well exist in pre-tech journalism as well and was more blatant. Eg. Iraq war WMD claims etc. Big tech censorship mirrors this but in a very limited manner since we know it is happening at any point in time and such information is available outside of the major platforms, which wasn't the case pre mainstream internet. Ultimately, big tech regulation of content is similar to how a WSJ or NYT would manage what they publish. They've been forced into this position with all the criticism over the last few years - it isn't something they wanted to invest in. It looks more like censorship because of the stepping back from the previously laissez faire approach to content, whereas NYT's baseline was self regulation (so it wasn't as apparent). Big tech media is privately held like a bar or a restaurant and in my opinion have every right to control who is on the platform and what is not ok to say - if one doesn't like it - they can leave.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  > So user generated fake news is ok, and so is foreign propaganda influencing elections? I mean... yes? People are ultimately responsible for their own worldview and vote. They are also perfectly entitled to consume any information from any source they please, aren't they?
scarface74 5y ago
Well if you live in the US - not really. If you live in a more populous state like California, you have much less voting power in the Senate and somewhat less voting power in the house and the executive office. I can much more easily leave a company that I don’t like than the government. A company does not have the power of the state to impose its will on me. This is the same government that less than a year ago wanted to come down on Saturday Night Live for being mean and is passing laws on the state level right now to forbid teachers from teaching history that doesn’t conform to it’s world view. It never ceases to amaze me that people want to give the same entity more power that can and will actually take your freedom away.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  > is passing laws on the state level right now to forbid teachers from teaching history that doesn’t conform to it’s world view That’s one version of the story. The other version is that teachers under direction from their union (NEA) are teaching unfactual revisionist history (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-proje...), mixed with a near-religious activist ideology (https://areomagazine.com/2019/01/25/the-theory-of-white-fragility-scholarship-or-proselytization/ https://areomagazine.com/2019/01/25/the-theory-of-white-frag...), and corrupting education by converting schools into political indoctrination centers. The easiest answer for all these problems is decentralization and choice. Google and other tech companies are effectively governments. They hold power and influence over billions, are insulated from competition by network effects, and also regularly act in monopolistic ways. They need to be broken up and regulated.
  - scarface74 5y ago
    Can any of these companies arrest me because I “fit the description” or take away my life and liberty? It’s a fact that because of the way that the US is setup between the electoral college, two senators per state and gerrymandering it’s not “majority rule”. This isn’t political. It’s the Constitution as designed. Until tech companies can take away property via imminent domain, money via civil forfeiture, or put me in jail, they are not anything like the government.
laumars 5y ago
I’m a European so I’m usually one of the first to defend legislation of companies. But when it comes to censorship that should entirely be down to the platform. Some platforms might have a no nudity policy, some have a zero trolling rule. Others call fair game to all of the above. Different people like to engage on different levels: some are into high brow arts, others just want to trade stories about getting smashed on drugs. And there’s a whole plethora of interests in between from mums talking about the different shades of brown their kids have squeezed out this week to teenagers talking about nipple slips. None of them have any less right to talk in a safe space than the other. So why should there be a law disclosing what people can talk about? Ok, I agree that Q Anon, anti-vax chat and so on and so forth causes more harm than good. But is it really the governments place to dictate that? What if the government was the one setting these narratives (not that hard to imagine given Trump and Johnson are two of the biggest serial liars in western political history)? Remember Trump threatened to shut Twitter down because Twitter fact checked Trumps post about election rigging. For free speech to work, you absolutely need companies to be responsible for what they consider acceptable content rather than the government to dictate it.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  " Some platforms might have a no nudity policy, some have a zero trolling rule. Others call fair game to all of the above. " If this all came with a duty of interoperability, I would be fine with that. But walled gardens that do their utmost to make leaving them really unpleasant and possibly expensive to the users ... that sounds a lot like coercion. And European law usually recognizes that individuals coerced, even softly, by large businesses, need protection.
  - laumars 5y ago
    That’s a separate problem though and should be handled like so. Dictating in law what content independent platforms can and cannot disallow doesn’t solve the walled garden problem. It just places greater challenges on new entrants / would-be competitors while still allowing walled gardens to exist. Plus you also then lose the diversity of TOS that might attract new users to new platforms. It’s a lose/lose outcome that doesn’t even attempt to solve the problem you’re identifying.

silentsea90 5y ago

So user generated fake news is ok, and so is foreign propaganda influencing elections? The law always lags behind what might defame a company(FB is the most recent example), hence the company ends up being proactive. Edit: I don't have strong opinions - just sharing a rational argument for being proactive.

brandonmenc 5y ago
No, they're not "ok", but I personally believe that outright censorship is worse. ymmv.
- silentsea90 5y ago
  It is a hard problem. The Govt pontificates about big tech issues without putting in the effort of making laws. Big tech is forced to anticipate what might defame them or be used by the Govt as ammo to garner public sympathy. It is a delicate balancing act between censorship and freedom. Zuck tried to put the onus on the Govt to define right and wrong, true and false, but to no avail. It is hard to please everybody unfortunately.
  - 3np 5y ago
    I really don’t see the hard part. Just because we consider something to be harmful and negative (like propaganda) doesn’t mean making it illegal is desirable. Even for the things that are illegal, it can be illegal to publish something but legal to provide connectivity services to the offender. Net neutrality is not a delicate balance. Or what’s a tricky edge case you have in mind?
    - silentsea90 5y ago
      I apologize if I missed your point, but in the case of fake news for instance, iiuc, you're arguing that fake news on FB is legal and that FB isn't responsible for such content on their platform. Information warfare is fairly real and potent in how it has weakened US democracy and vaccination efforts recently. Ultimately, arguably, this has real consequences for the economy, national security etc.
      - 3np 5y ago
        I am not saying that FB is not responsible. I am saying that FB should not have their services blocked by ISPs or government because of fake news on their platform. You're correct in your observation but state-sanctioned censorship is not the solution. In case we're talking around each other; what kind of laws would you like to see put in place?
        silentsea90 5y ago
        Agree with the idea. I don't have strong opinions on solutions here, and don't mind the status quo.
nine_k 5y ago
I think the same approach as with spam is best. If you can determine that a particular piece of information belongs to some unpleasant or dangerous category, mark it as that, like a spam filter does, or vaguely how FB does with posts. Importantly, do not remove it unless the law forces you to. Then let users switch between the filtered and unfiltered view, or look at the analog of the "Spam" folder. This allows to study pieces of information that are deemed "controversial" or even "malevolent" and make your own opinion, if you're so inclined. Even more, it could apply several different cultural filters, like "content likely offensive for X", where X is a major religious or cultural group, much the same way as many providers currently mark content as inappropriate for children.
- smhost 5y ago
  and then there will be a million "Top 10 things the government doesn't want you to know" videos that amplify whatever it was they were trying to censor
  - nine_k 5y ago
    But the point is in not trying to censor.
- silentsea90 5y ago
  Twitter does add warnings to tweets that are questionable in their claims (anti vax, fake news etc). Is that what you were thinking?
ctdonath 5y ago
Better that misguided individuals be free to speak, than misguided self-appointed “fact checkers” silence truth.
throwawaysea 5y ago
A side note: foreign propaganda is not worse than domestic propaganda. Swarms of dedicated activists using rioting and other violence to achieve political goals (the dictionary definition of terrorism), in collusion with a sympathetic tech industry that suppresses any dissenting thought, is propaganda and it does influence elections. When these companies do things like ban Trump, they are illegally making a campaign contribution without abiding by the laws of campaign finance. When they do things like censor discussions of the lab leak theory, they propagandize the entire world by freeing the CCP of the bare minimum for accountability.
- silentsea90 5y ago
  I am not a fan of any approach here and largely agree with you. Media censorship did very well exist in pre-tech journalism as well and was more blatant. Eg. Iraq war WMD claims etc. Big tech censorship mirrors this but in a very limited manner since we know it is happening at any point in time and such information is available outside of the major platforms, which wasn't the case pre mainstream internet. Ultimately, big tech regulation of content is similar to how a WSJ or NYT would manage what they publish. They've been forced into this position with all the criticism over the last few years - it isn't something they wanted to invest in. It looks more like censorship because of the stepping back from the previously laissez faire approach to content, whereas NYT's baseline was self regulation (so it wasn't as apparent). Big tech media is privately held like a bar or a restaurant and in my opinion have every right to control who is on the platform and what is not ok to say - if one doesn't like it - they can leave.
thegrimmest 5y ago
> So user generated fake news is ok, and so is foreign propaganda influencing elections? I mean... yes? People are ultimately responsible for their own worldview and vote. They are also perfectly entitled to consume any information from any source they please, aren't they?

scarface74 5y ago

Well if you live in the US - not really. If you live in a more populous state like California, you have much less voting power in the Senate and somewhat less voting power in the house and the executive office. I can much more easily leave a company that I don’t like than the government. A company does not have the power of the state to impose its will on me. This is the same government that less than a year ago wanted to come down on Saturday Night Live for being mean and is passing laws on the state level right now to forbid teachers from teaching history that doesn’t conform to it’s world view. It never ceases to amaze me that people want to give the same entity more power that can and will actually take your freedom away.

throwawaysea 5y ago
> is passing laws on the state level right now to forbid teachers from teaching history that doesn’t conform to it’s world view That’s one version of the story. The other version is that teachers under direction from their union (NEA) are teaching unfactual revisionist history (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-proje...), mixed with a near-religious activist ideology (https://areomagazine.com/2019/01/25/the-theory-of-white-fragility-scholarship-or-proselytization/ https://areomagazine.com/2019/01/25/the-theory-of-white-frag...), and corrupting education by converting schools into political indoctrination centers. The easiest answer for all these problems is decentralization and choice. Google and other tech companies are effectively governments. They hold power and influence over billions, are insulated from competition by network effects, and also regularly act in monopolistic ways. They need to be broken up and regulated.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Can any of these companies arrest me because I “fit the description” or take away my life and liberty? It’s a fact that because of the way that the US is setup between the electoral college, two senators per state and gerrymandering it’s not “majority rule”. This isn’t political. It’s the Constitution as designed. Until tech companies can take away property via imminent domain, money via civil forfeiture, or put me in jail, they are not anything like the government.

laumars 5y ago

I’m a European so I’m usually one of the first to defend legislation of companies. But when it comes to censorship that should entirely be down to the platform. Some platforms might have a no nudity policy, some have a zero trolling rule. Others call fair game to all of the above. Different people like to engage on different levels: some are into high brow arts, others just want to trade stories about getting smashed on drugs. And there’s a whole plethora of interests in between from mums talking about the different shades of brown their kids have squeezed out this week to teenagers talking about nipple slips. None of them have any less right to talk in a safe space than the other. So why should there be a law disclosing what people can talk about? Ok, I agree that Q Anon, anti-vax chat and so on and so forth causes more harm than good. But is it really the governments place to dictate that? What if the government was the one setting these narratives (not that hard to imagine given Trump and Johnson are two of the biggest serial liars in western political history)? Remember Trump threatened to shut Twitter down because Twitter fact checked Trumps post about election rigging. For free speech to work, you absolutely need companies to be responsible for what they consider acceptable content rather than the government to dictate it.

inglor_cz 5y ago
" Some platforms might have a no nudity policy, some have a zero trolling rule. Others call fair game to all of the above. " If this all came with a duty of interoperability, I would be fine with that. But walled gardens that do their utmost to make leaving them really unpleasant and possibly expensive to the users ... that sounds a lot like coercion. And European law usually recognizes that individuals coerced, even softly, by large businesses, need protection.
- laumars 5y ago
  That’s a separate problem though and should be handled like so. Dictating in law what content independent platforms can and cannot disallow doesn’t solve the walled garden problem. It just places greater challenges on new entrants / would-be competitors while still allowing walled gardens to exist. Plus you also then lose the diversity of TOS that might attract new users to new platforms. It’s a lose/lose outcome that doesn’t even attempt to solve the problem you’re identifying.