4 ms·

> How do you not end up with a censorship department of the government, that is tasked with writing moderation rules? That already exists: governments already

> How do you not end up with a censorship department of the government, that is tasked with writing moderation rules? That already exists: governments already have laws limiting some forms of speech e.g. copyright infringements or pornography. Obviously corporations that want to stay in business have to obey the laws. > "the idea of free speech in modern liberal democracies" As I've already pointed out, all states already have laws limiting speech. Maybe I think there should be more such laws; maybe I think there should be less; but either way it's orthogonal to whether I want FB to have power to control what I can say and hear. If my government passes laws that I don't like, citizens can vote them out at the next election. I can't vote Zuckerberg out, he's an undemocratic locus of power. > It probably wouldn't be called a censorship office, but that's what it would be: a government office determining what can and can't be posted on social media. As I said, such laws already exist. > Do you have any other way to implement your idea of forcing Facebook to show you the feeds you subscribe to? Yes, require all social media apps to provide interoperability though ActivityPub and similar protocols. Make sure there are no legal or technical impediments to people running social media servers (Mastodon etc) on their own hardware though their home internet connections. What I actually want is a world where people don't care whether FB censors things, because it doesn't matter as people can and do use other means to communicate. So FB censors stuff and no-one notices because it has no practical effect. That is, a world where FB is stripped of their power.

clucas 5y ago
> What I actually want is a world where people don't care whether FB censors things, because it doesn't matter as people can and do use other means to communicate. Fortunately, we already live in this world! We have the internet!
- ddingus 5y ago
  Lol, that has the public square embodied in a few big systems. If it were me, I would have those regulated to be like utilities. Pre internet, business was done via phone. Deplatforming = not allowed to have a phone, and that basically did not happen.
  - clucas 5y ago
    Deplatforming doesn't apply to phones because phone communication is fundamentally different from social media. And prior to the internet, deplatforming still existed: when would you ever hear anyone make neo-nazi arguments on any of the broadcast tv networks?
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Well, broadcast has been gatekeeping on a LOT of fronts for a very long time, nothing new there. When do we see economic reporting from the labor point of view, for example? We don't on broadcast anymore. And after massive media consolidation, that reporting only happens via indie media, and it's largely via the Internet, discoverable through social media. The answer to broadcast issues was public access broadcasting, and the likes of PBS. That sort of worked, except for underfunding and the need for big business to underwrite most of the programming. In terms of social media, what is needed is process. Trying to do business today without it is similar to not having a phone. However, let's set that aside and just look at conflict of interest and speech issues. The major players are the public square today. Whether that was intended isn't the point. That they are, is. Back when Alex Jones was deplatformed, a lot of us, myself included, said we were headed down this increasingly difficult road today, and here we are. We were also frequently judged as being some supporter for Jones. (I am not, but see his case as being high value for this discussion) Process needs to be there to manage expectations, provide opportunity for improvement, provide consistency and all the basics needed. In other words, some growing up needs to happen. Costs are higher, risks are higher, and the money is more than good enough. Without it, what we've got is a very highly arbitrary, quite easily abused system that far too many people depend on for important discussions. Look at the folks advocating for direct democracy. They assume all this is here, working properly, and working for us, not against us. The neo-nazis were on public access BTW. I seen 'em, along with quite a few others on the mandated access channels.

clucas 5y ago

> What I actually want is a world where people don't care whether FB censors things, because it doesn't matter as people can and do use other means to communicate. Fortunately, we already live in this world! We have the internet!

ddingus 5y ago
Lol, that has the public square embodied in a few big systems. If it were me, I would have those regulated to be like utilities. Pre internet, business was done via phone. Deplatforming = not allowed to have a phone, and that basically did not happen.
- clucas 5y ago
  Deplatforming doesn't apply to phones because phone communication is fundamentally different from social media. And prior to the internet, deplatforming still existed: when would you ever hear anyone make neo-nazi arguments on any of the broadcast tv networks?
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Well, broadcast has been gatekeeping on a LOT of fronts for a very long time, nothing new there. When do we see economic reporting from the labor point of view, for example? We don't on broadcast anymore. And after massive media consolidation, that reporting only happens via indie media, and it's largely via the Internet, discoverable through social media. The answer to broadcast issues was public access broadcasting, and the likes of PBS. That sort of worked, except for underfunding and the need for big business to underwrite most of the programming. In terms of social media, what is needed is process. Trying to do business today without it is similar to not having a phone. However, let's set that aside and just look at conflict of interest and speech issues. The major players are the public square today. Whether that was intended isn't the point. That they are, is. Back when Alex Jones was deplatformed, a lot of us, myself included, said we were headed down this increasingly difficult road today, and here we are. We were also frequently judged as being some supporter for Jones. (I am not, but see his case as being high value for this discussion) Process needs to be there to manage expectations, provide opportunity for improvement, provide consistency and all the basics needed. In other words, some growing up needs to happen. Costs are higher, risks are higher, and the money is more than good enough. Without it, what we've got is a very highly arbitrary, quite easily abused system that far too many people depend on for important discussions. Look at the folks advocating for direct democracy. They assume all this is here, working properly, and working for us, not against us. The neo-nazis were on public access BTW. I seen 'em, along with quite a few others on the mandated access channels.