3 ms·

Section 230 clarified what networks were allowed to do without needing to overtly moderate the content. Without it, networks are going to figure out different b

Section 230 clarified what networks were allowed to do without needing to overtly moderate the content. Without it, networks are going to figure out different business models because it's not possible to fully moderate a billion people. I keep seeing people compare social media networks to telephone operators, but they're nothing alike, even if you tie yourself into a logical pretzel in an attempt to do so. They're much closer to radio operators.

saurik 5y ago
But... the "business model" you are defending is something we all know is bullshit: maximizing engagement to collect data on users and sell advertisements :(. Why should we go out of our way to help this exist? I am not "tying myself into a logical pretzel" to do the comparison: I'm carefully considering the tradeoffs with the goal of penalizing things I don't like to get the things I do. The original model of Instagram--and Facebook! and (mostly, but not entirely) Twitter--is that you have an account, and people who follow you can see what you post, in time order. There is absolutely no reason why they need centralized moderation for this: the moderation comes from people deciding to unfollow you if they don't like your content for absolutely any personal reason. If the result of this is that you can't have a massive behemoth social network that only scales because it is using biased AIs to filter content while attempting to maximize "engagement" by pushing people to extreme positions while washing their hands of the whole mess by claiming "wasn't us: this is on the users!" even though the editorial decisions are their own... THAT'S GREAT!
- a_t48 5y ago
  > The original model of Instagram--and Facebook! and (mostly, but not entirely) Twitter--is that you have an account, and people who follow you can see what you post, in time order. There is absolutely no reason why they need centralized moderation for this: the moderation comes from people deciding to unfollow you if they don't like your content for absolutely any personal reason. Not quite - what about _actual_ calls to violence and such? (Very hyperbolically) should a platform allow the local KKK chapter to use it plan lynches?

saurik 5y ago

But... the "business model" you are defending is something we all know is bullshit: maximizing engagement to collect data on users and sell advertisements :(. Why should we go out of our way to help this exist? I am not "tying myself into a logical pretzel" to do the comparison: I'm carefully considering the tradeoffs with the goal of penalizing things I don't like to get the things I do. The original model of Instagram--and Facebook! and (mostly, but not entirely) Twitter--is that you have an account, and people who follow you can see what you post, in time order. There is absolutely no reason why they need centralized moderation for this: the moderation comes from people deciding to unfollow you if they don't like your content for absolutely any personal reason. If the result of this is that you can't have a massive behemoth social network that only scales because it is using biased AIs to filter content while attempting to maximize "engagement" by pushing people to extreme positions while washing their hands of the whole mess by claiming "wasn't us: this is on the users!" even though the editorial decisions are their own... THAT'S GREAT!

a_t48 5y ago
> The original model of Instagram--and Facebook! and (mostly, but not entirely) Twitter--is that you have an account, and people who follow you can see what you post, in time order. There is absolutely no reason why they need centralized moderation for this: the moderation comes from people deciding to unfollow you if they don't like your content for absolutely any personal reason. Not quite - what about _actual_ calls to violence and such? (Very hyperbolically) should a platform allow the local KKK chapter to use it plan lynches?