4 ms·

What if it is not censorship but rather we apply same standards for Facebook feed that we have for newspapers. If a newspaper publishes something false that hur

What if it is not censorship but rather we apply same standards for Facebook feed that we have for newspapers. If a newspaper publishes something false that hurts someone, they can sue newspapers because editors should have caught false information. Facebook or social media algorithms now optimize feeds for engagement even if information is false or harmful. To me algorithms are new editors. So people who are hurt by these algorithms should be able to sue companies that run these algorithms. If social media companies want section 230 protection, then they should not use any form of algorithms. Show everything without prioritizing anything.

wombatpm 5y ago
Facebook is essentially a media company. All of the ad revenue and none of the regulations or responsibilities. Facebook may claim otherwise— but if it looks like a duck …
philwelch 5y ago
Newspapers are a poor analog to social media for this exact reason. A newspaper is the same newspaper for everyone. The better analogue to social media, at least from the user’s perspective, is direct mail. If someone mails out libelous political fundraising letters, the liability is on whoever wrote the letter, not the postal service. The only difference with social media is that social media has ranking algorithms, but that’s because the volume of social media far outstrips the volume of direct mail. Even Gmail uses algorithms to filter your various inboxes. If social media worked the same way as direct mail, you’d basically be forced to dig through every social media post within your subscriptions at random to make sure you didn’t miss anything you wanted to see. Which means the primary effect of the algorithm is subtractive. The algorithm sometimes adds content you weren’t otherwise subscribed to, but most of the time, it works by hiding content you are subscribed to. The primary complaint seems to be that Facebook isn’t hiding enough content. Finally, I think you’re understating the problem with mainstream media. Settling defamation lawsuits out of court, on the rare case that false and harmful news media actually crosses that line, does not even come close to undoing the initial damage. Especially since under US law, public figures—who are the primary targets of media coverage—have a much higher burden of proof to sue for defamation. (Whenever politicians propose reforming these defamation laws, these mainstream media outlets respond with passive-aggressive antics like printing “Democracy Dies In Darkness” on their mastheads. I bet Zuckerberg wishes he could get away with that kind of thing.)

wombatpm 5y ago

Facebook is essentially a media company. All of the ad revenue and none of the regulations or responsibilities. Facebook may claim otherwise— but if it looks like a duck …

philwelch 5y ago

Newspapers are a poor analog to social media for this exact reason. A newspaper is the same newspaper for everyone. The better analogue to social media, at least from the user’s perspective, is direct mail. If someone mails out libelous political fundraising letters, the liability is on whoever wrote the letter, not the postal service. The only difference with social media is that social media has ranking algorithms, but that’s because the volume of social media far outstrips the volume of direct mail. Even Gmail uses algorithms to filter your various inboxes. If social media worked the same way as direct mail, you’d basically be forced to dig through every social media post within your subscriptions at random to make sure you didn’t miss anything you wanted to see. Which means the primary effect of the algorithm is subtractive. The algorithm sometimes adds content you weren’t otherwise subscribed to, but most of the time, it works by hiding content you are subscribed to. The primary complaint seems to be that Facebook isn’t hiding enough content. Finally, I think you’re understating the problem with mainstream media. Settling defamation lawsuits out of court, on the rare case that false and harmful news media actually crosses that line, does not even come close to undoing the initial damage. Especially since under US law, public figures—who are the primary targets of media coverage—have a much higher burden of proof to sue for defamation. (Whenever politicians propose reforming these defamation laws, these mainstream media outlets respond with passive-aggressive antics like printing “Democracy Dies In Darkness” on their mastheads. I bet Zuckerberg wishes he could get away with that kind of thing.)