4 ms·

"Their platform their choice", right? Maybe the researchers can make their own platform. Remember when everyone said that about people they didn't like?

ceejayoz 5y ago
Don't mistake "it's legal" for "it can't be criticized". "Their platform, their choice" tends to refer to the legal situation (especially when folks make wild claims about Facebook being subject to the First Amendment), not the moral one. Their choices can be bad, and we can be critical of them.
- luckylion 5y ago
  To be fair, in 90% of the responses the GP is referencing, it totally also means the moral one. "Just build your own platform" is a common response.
  - drdeca 5y ago
    I don’t know about quite 90% (though maybe that was meant as hyperbole), but yes, it does seem a common occurrence to defend bannings and such on similar grounds, often by conflating “legally permissible” with “appropriate”. That being said, while I certainly agree that decisions about how to run a platform can be such that they should be legal, but also shouldn’t be done, I also feel that the range of what can be appropriate for a platform to require/do can be fairly large, so long as they produce the appropriate expectations among users and others who interact with the platform (and not just by drastically expectations as immediate preparations for changing policies in big ways either) So, my view on the “ ‘just make your own platform’ “ complaint, is a bit mixed? Obviously the neutrality of the base-layers is highly important.. but if they weren’t, would the solution be to make a replacement that was, or to somehow get those in control of the base layers to behave neutrally? Well, the degree of lock-in at base layers would presumably be basically just as high as it is now (though, I would expect a typical world with less neutral base layers would also have more centralization of the base layers? Not sure how that would influence this.) Well, at least if the base layers were govt controlled, then I guess there would probably be an obligation for it to be neutral, not just something desirable. Perhaps if it were privately owned by a single org, due to being so critical, it would be justified for govt to (with appropriate compensation) , Ok nvm idk what I’m talking about
    - luckylion 5y ago
      > Ok nvm idk what I’m talking about I think you do, at least as much as anyone who doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction and sees it as a binary issue. I believe it's a tough question and you can think of arguments for and against on many levels, and there isn't a perfect solution that doesn't have massive trade-offs and large side-effects. On the one hand, I agree that public services with forced neutrality might be a good approach, on the other hand I'm not sure governments should get involved in something that is already a mess. It might become a larger mess, that also works slower and would look more and more like something out of Kafka's nightmares.

ceejayoz 5y ago

Don't mistake "it's legal" for "it can't be criticized". "Their platform, their choice" tends to refer to the legal situation (especially when folks make wild claims about Facebook being subject to the First Amendment), not the moral one. Their choices can be bad, and we can be critical of them.

luckylion 5y ago
To be fair, in 90% of the responses the GP is referencing, it totally also means the moral one. "Just build your own platform" is a common response.
- drdeca 5y ago
  I don’t know about quite 90% (though maybe that was meant as hyperbole), but yes, it does seem a common occurrence to defend bannings and such on similar grounds, often by conflating “legally permissible” with “appropriate”. That being said, while I certainly agree that decisions about how to run a platform can be such that they should be legal, but also shouldn’t be done, I also feel that the range of what can be appropriate for a platform to require/do can be fairly large, so long as they produce the appropriate expectations among users and others who interact with the platform (and not just by drastically expectations as immediate preparations for changing policies in big ways either) So, my view on the “ ‘just make your own platform’ “ complaint, is a bit mixed? Obviously the neutrality of the base-layers is highly important.. but if they weren’t, would the solution be to make a replacement that was, or to somehow get those in control of the base layers to behave neutrally? Well, the degree of lock-in at base layers would presumably be basically just as high as it is now (though, I would expect a typical world with less neutral base layers would also have more centralization of the base layers? Not sure how that would influence this.) Well, at least if the base layers were govt controlled, then I guess there would probably be an obligation for it to be neutral, not just something desirable. Perhaps if it were privately owned by a single org, due to being so critical, it would be justified for govt to (with appropriate compensation) , Ok nvm idk what I’m talking about
  - luckylion 5y ago
    > Ok nvm idk what I’m talking about I think you do, at least as much as anyone who doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction and sees it as a binary issue. I believe it's a tough question and you can think of arguments for and against on many levels, and there isn't a perfect solution that doesn't have massive trade-offs and large side-effects. On the one hand, I agree that public services with forced neutrality might be a good approach, on the other hand I'm not sure governments should get involved in something that is already a mess. It might become a larger mess, that also works slower and would look more and more like something out of Kafka's nightmares.