3 ms·

The problem that the article is pointing out at least is that the free speech idealists don’t actually seem to have a vision to realize their ideals, and in man

The problem that the article is pointing out at least is that the free speech idealists don’t actually seem to have a vision to realize their ideals, and in many cases behave in ways that are counter to the absolutist rhetoric that they’re using to rally popular support for their new platforms or takeover bids. But yes, ultimately the (U.S.) government is not able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate) because that would be a first amendment violation, so the only solution for people unhappy with current platforms is to migrate to new ones.

twofornone 5y ago
>don’t actually seem to have a vision to realize their ideals It doesn't help when infrastructure also refuses to host or handle payments for your platform for wrongthink. That said you're right in that the alternatives have been built with perplexingly questionable data harvesting and security protocol.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
after_care 5y ago
> But yes, ultimately the (U.S.) government is not able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate) because that would be a first amendment violation, so the only solution for people unhappy with current platforms is to migrate to new ones. Migration is not what's best for society. The migration to silos creates thought bubbles, is a barrier to cross-pollination of ideas, and potentially creates extremist. The ideal social network is a federated network with individuals selecting their own content filtering/moderator. It's possible for all nodes of the network to communicate, and the important responsibility of moderation is removed from the platform. Removing nodes form a network and adding them to a separate network (migration) doesn't solve anything at scale.
cryptonector 5y ago
The U.S. is very much "able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate)", it's just that those businesses legally can ignore that. But what if the businesses are happy to do as they're told because of other factors? Factors such as: being in agreement with the orders, fearing spurious SEC/IRS/... investigations and audits, etc.
anamax 5y ago
> But yes, ultimately the (U.S.) government is not able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate) because that would be a first amendment violation And yet, the US Govt has done exactly that and Twitter et al fell right in line.

twofornone 5y ago

>don’t actually seem to have a vision to realize their ideals It doesn't help when infrastructure also refuses to host or handle payments for your platform for wrongthink. That said you're right in that the alternatives have been built with perplexingly questionable data harvesting and security protocol.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

after_care 5y ago

> But yes, ultimately the (U.S.) government is not able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate) because that would be a first amendment violation, so the only solution for people unhappy with current platforms is to migrate to new ones. Migration is not what's best for society. The migration to silos creates thought bubbles, is a barrier to cross-pollination of ideas, and potentially creates extremist. The ideal social network is a federated network with individuals selecting their own content filtering/moderator. It's possible for all nodes of the network to communicate, and the important responsibility of moderation is removed from the platform. Removing nodes form a network and adding them to a separate network (migration) doesn't solve anything at scale.

cryptonector 5y ago

The U.S. is very much "able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate)", it's just that those businesses legally can ignore that. But what if the businesses are happy to do as they're told because of other factors? Factors such as: being in agreement with the orders, fearing spurious SEC/IRS/... investigations and audits, etc.

anamax 5y ago

> But yes, ultimately the (U.S.) government is not able to tell businesses what content to moderate (or not moderate) because that would be a first amendment violation And yet, the US Govt has done exactly that and Twitter et al fell right in line.