5 ms·

Many people are saying "regulation" What would that regulation actually require social media companies to do?

by bagels 5y ago

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
I’m starting to think section 230 protections (as I understand them) are a bad idea. The whole issue is these negative externalities. Facebook has to choose between money for them versus good things for others. It has misaligned incentives because it isn’t liable for the harm it imposes. So make it liable.
k4lk 5y ago
It's not an easy answer, but an important discussion to have. In any case, what is made abundantly clear from this information is that Facebook and others like them neither will or can protect the public interest. I like the argument that we have freedom of choice but we by no means have freedom of chance. To me that would be a place to start in terms of finding regulation that can protect the public.
michaelmrose 5y ago
This is not palatable but trivial. Your login tied to your actual ID. Sites that won't participate can't take US funds or do business with entities that also want to do business with the US. Call for violence or threaten people go to jail. Spread malicious lies you knew are false for political gains go to jail. Spread others harmful crap unwittingly that would tend to lead to others deaths get a ticket for actual money and a strike. 3 strikes you can't play on social media this year. Get banned 3 years in a row get a 10 year vacation from social media. The internet and society would be better off within a year. Within 3 most of the real pieces of work would be conspiring with each other via tor unable to reach 90% of the population.
- teddyh 5y ago
  Let’s wait and see how that works in China before doing it ourselves, too.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    I think we can maintain individual rights trivially while still sending people to jail who threaten to murder people. Other lines can be carefully drawn. The idea that if we regulate harmful behavior AT ALL we will suddenly enact 1984 seems thoughtless.
    - teddyh 5y ago
      > I think we can maintain individual rights trivially while still sending people to jail who threaten to murder people. Yes, we do that now. > Other lines can be carefully drawn. I challenge you to draw a careful line for what is considered “harmful crap”. If you think you can do this, you are most likely a person who sees everything in black and white, and we don’t want people like that enforcing laws or policies.
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        I called out a local individual for trying to scam people on the facebook market and got death threats from someone who lives an hour from me who wasn't banned from facebook. They basically aren't doing anything.
        teddyh 5y ago
        But death threats are already illegal. What does your proposal bring? Making it extra illegal? A failure of the police and other authorities to act does not mean that the law is at fault.
        michaelmrose 5y ago
        I'm talking about enforcement and making social media platforms liable if they don't deal with such situations expeditiously. We don't need such standards per se because neither of us is a lunatic but if I were in this very comment to make threats of horrific violence against you or your family you can be assured that hacker news tiny moderation team would waste little time in removing my ability to post because they give a fuck about the health of this community. Facebook by contrast deals with a fraction of 1% of such issues.
- lanevorockz 5y ago
  Problem here is enforcement, as we have seen ... The Legal representatives are also elected, meaning that the legal system is also political. Everyone has something to gain out of it.
- azernik 5y ago
  Almost every single thing you proposed is radioactively unconstitutional in the United States.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Harmful misinformation is fire in a crowded theater and threats and incitement to violence have never been protected. There have always been limits to free speech and it has always been possible to set ground rules for how companies operate.
    - azernik 5y ago
      "Fire in a crowded theater" is an assertion that there are limits to protected speech. It says nothing about what those limits are. Harmful misinformation is well inside those limits. (And in any case it's from a decision that was overturned 50 years ago.) For a somewhat snarky lawyer's explanation, see: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        I'm not confused on this matter I'm asserting it ought to change.
        azernik 5y ago
        You said these things "have never been protected", and that "there have always been limits". Those are descriptive (and incorrect) statements about the actual law. If you think the law is bad and should be different, say that. Don't phrase your policy goals as if they're the way the law currently works.
taurath 5y ago
I made a few suggestions elsewhere in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28743057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28743057 Real deep regulation would mean breaking up the network effect, and forcing a federated system so either people have a choice or people have tools to manage what’s on their social streams.
cblconfederate 5y ago
Here is how i think of it: Put people in an fMRI machine while reading and interacting with the facebook feed of a celebrity, or person that they dont have personal connection with Then show people the feed of their friends or family Then force facebook to change its algorithms until the two fMRI readings show similar level of activation of key areas in limbic system The real power of facebook is that it exploits the stronger emotional relationship that people have with close friends/family , as opposed to the shallow relationship they have with other public figures, which is what the TV/radio/news exploited in the past
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  You're putting a lot of faith in the accuracy of fMRI there.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    could use other physiological signals, heart rate, nerves etc
- bagels 5y ago
  Facebook is supposed to somehow make people not recognize celebrities as different from their own family? Sounds like a dangerous goal.
jraby3 5y ago
Use a most recent first timeline like the old Facebook used to do. Stop manipulating people’s emotions to get them to click on ads by controlling the newsfeed. That’s a good start anyway.

Many people are saying "regulation" What would that regulation actually require social media companies to do?

by bagels 5y ago

Many people are saying "regulation" What would that regulation actually require social media companies to do?

I’m starting to think section 230 protections (as I understand them) are a bad idea. The whole issue is these negative externalities. Facebook has to choose between money for them versus good things for others. It has misaligned incentives because it isn’t liable for the harm it imposes. So make it liable.

k4lk 5y ago

It's not an easy answer, but an important discussion to have. In any case, what is made abundantly clear from this information is that Facebook and others like them neither will or can protect the public interest. I like the argument that we have freedom of choice but we by no means have freedom of chance. To me that would be a place to start in terms of finding regulation that can protect the public.

michaelmrose 5y ago

This is not palatable but trivial. Your login tied to your actual ID. Sites that won't participate can't take US funds or do business with entities that also want to do business with the US. Call for violence or threaten people go to jail. Spread malicious lies you knew are false for political gains go to jail. Spread others harmful crap unwittingly that would tend to lead to others deaths get a ticket for actual money and a strike. 3 strikes you can't play on social media this year. Get banned 3 years in a row get a 10 year vacation from social media. The internet and society would be better off within a year. Within 3 most of the real pieces of work would be conspiring with each other via tor unable to reach 90% of the population.

teddyh 5y ago
Let’s wait and see how that works in China before doing it ourselves, too.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  I think we can maintain individual rights trivially while still sending people to jail who threaten to murder people. Other lines can be carefully drawn. The idea that if we regulate harmful behavior AT ALL we will suddenly enact 1984 seems thoughtless.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    > I think we can maintain individual rights trivially while still sending people to jail who threaten to murder people. Yes, we do that now. > Other lines can be carefully drawn. I challenge you to draw a careful line for what is considered “harmful crap”. If you think you can do this, you are most likely a person who sees everything in black and white, and we don’t want people like that enforcing laws or policies.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      I called out a local individual for trying to scam people on the facebook market and got death threats from someone who lives an hour from me who wasn't banned from facebook. They basically aren't doing anything.
      - teddyh 5y ago
        But death threats are already illegal. What does your proposal bring? Making it extra illegal? A failure of the police and other authorities to act does not mean that the law is at fault.
        michaelmrose 5y ago
        I'm talking about enforcement and making social media platforms liable if they don't deal with such situations expeditiously. We don't need such standards per se because neither of us is a lunatic but if I were in this very comment to make threats of horrific violence against you or your family you can be assured that hacker news tiny moderation team would waste little time in removing my ability to post because they give a fuck about the health of this community. Facebook by contrast deals with a fraction of 1% of such issues.
lanevorockz 5y ago
Problem here is enforcement, as we have seen ... The Legal representatives are also elected, meaning that the legal system is also political. Everyone has something to gain out of it.
azernik 5y ago
Almost every single thing you proposed is radioactively unconstitutional in the United States.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Harmful misinformation is fire in a crowded theater and threats and incitement to violence have never been protected. There have always been limits to free speech and it has always been possible to set ground rules for how companies operate.
  - azernik 5y ago
    "Fire in a crowded theater" is an assertion that there are limits to protected speech. It says nothing about what those limits are. Harmful misinformation is well inside those limits. (And in any case it's from a decision that was overturned 50 years ago.) For a somewhat snarky lawyer's explanation, see: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      I'm not confused on this matter I'm asserting it ought to change.
      - azernik 5y ago
        You said these things "have never been protected", and that "there have always been limits". Those are descriptive (and incorrect) statements about the actual law. If you think the law is bad and should be different, say that. Don't phrase your policy goals as if they're the way the law currently works.

taurath 5y ago

I made a few suggestions elsewhere in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28743057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28743057 Real deep regulation would mean breaking up the network effect, and forcing a federated system so either people have a choice or people have tools to manage what’s on their social streams.

cblconfederate 5y ago

Here is how i think of it: Put people in an fMRI machine while reading and interacting with the facebook feed of a celebrity, or person that they dont have personal connection with Then show people the feed of their friends or family Then force facebook to change its algorithms until the two fMRI readings show similar level of activation of key areas in limbic system The real power of facebook is that it exploits the stronger emotional relationship that people have with close friends/family , as opposed to the shallow relationship they have with other public figures, which is what the TV/radio/news exploited in the past

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
You're putting a lot of faith in the accuracy of fMRI there.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  could use other physiological signals, heart rate, nerves etc
bagels 5y ago
Facebook is supposed to somehow make people not recognize celebrities as different from their own family? Sounds like a dangerous goal.

jraby3 5y ago

Use a most recent first timeline like the old Facebook used to do. Stop manipulating people’s emotions to get them to click on ads by controlling the newsfeed. That’s a good start anyway.