4 ms·

Hahaha that's very true! My bias against the front-ends of those services is showing. That still doesn't mean they don't need regulation though. To elaborate,

Hahaha that's very true! My bias against the front-ends of those services is showing. That still doesn't mean they don't need regulation though. To elaborate, there is a world of difference between some smaller forum/board/chat network/webserver run by some random guy/girl in a community, and a multi-billion dollar public corporate entity hellbent on extracting every bit of value from every facet of your life that they possibly can. Either the fact that these companies can wield such enormous powers over the population, or the manner in which they do so, needs to see the light and society must decide on how they will restrain these actors. I know that some people (ugh, yes... most people...) favor these media today as their means of communication, marketing, discourse, etc, but these corporations have gone way too far, and restricting the actual good things the internet brings like anonymity while ignoring the far more pressing evils of these unchecked capitalists is silly.

spupe 5y ago
The internet can remain anonymous at large, but we could require any company with an audience larger than, say, 10k people to operate within the parameters Haidt describes. In other words, you can be completely anonymous if using small communities, but if you are operating within a platform so large that it has the power to influence the outcome of elections, we need to regulate whether or not you are actually human. And yes, we do need to make you accountable if you break laws in these platforms. I do value anonymity immensely, yet I see no other way around this hurdle. The solution you describe - simply banning Twitter, Facebook, etc. - is more damaging in my opinion.