29 ms·

Obama argues unregulated social media is a threat to democracy

52 points by Fervicus 4y ago

incomingpain 4y ago
Section 230 is the regulation. >any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or The problem was that censorship on social media has not been done in good faith and has far exceeded these regulations. Yet nobody ever got around to punishing social media for their violation of these regulations. Now that Elon has made the effort to get Twitter into compliance and stop violating regulations, now you call them unregulated and want to change the rules? I hope that Biden and friends try to change the rules so close to midterms. Lets see how that democracy goes after that.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Yet nobody ever got around to punishing social media for their violation of these regulations. That's a negative regulation, thee only actor that can violate it is government. It is impossible for a social media platform to violate the cited regulation. It's true that if there is another regulation applicable to platform conduct, there are platform actions that would take the platform out of the immunity provided by the cited regulation (but those hypothetical other regulations would also be constrained by the First Amendment, whether or not the Section 230 immunity applied.)
  - incomingpain 4y ago
    >That's a negative regulation, thee only actor that can violate it is government. It is impossible for a social media platform to violate the cited regulation. No, they list out exactly what they may censor like porn. Twitter doesn't do that. It's their choice to do less and that's fine. The problem is that they can't do more. That's a positive regulation. >It's true that if there is another regulation applicable to platform conduct, there are platform actions that would take the platform out of the immunity provided by the cited regulation (but those hypothetical other regulations would also be constrained by the First Amendment, whether or not the Section 230 immunity applied.) It's a positive regulation because we regulate media more. We say as a publisher you cant do lots of things that say wikipedia or twitter can do. The caveat is that you can't later regulate more so that you basically are a publisher but without the liability. That would break the system. Something the article missed is that Obama did explain that anything they do can't conflict with free speech. Therefore it's pointless to go more than section 230.
    - danShumway 4y ago
      > No, they list out exactly what they may censor like porn. Twitter doesn't do that. It's their choice to do less and that's fine. The problem is that they can't do more. That's a positive regulation. That is not the way that any court I'm aware of has ever interpreted Section 230, and it's not the way the original author of Section 230 has ever interpreted it either. Section 230 is not a list that describes the only things you are allowed to censor. It's a regulation on the government that prevents them from treating proactive moderation as liability for other unmoderated content. Section 230 does not require that a site avoid censoring certain kinds of information.
      - incomingpain 4y ago
        >That is not the way that any court I'm aware of has ever interpreted Section 230, and it's not the way the original author of Section 230 has ever interpreted it either. I'm not a supreme court justice. >Section 230 is not a list that describes the only things you are allowed to censor. It's a regulation on the government that prevents them from treating proactive moderation as liability for unmoderated content. So why does section 230 exist? In a situation like if you are CNN. You publish lies on your platform like Nick Sandman is a white supremacist. You are liable as the publisher. If someone on twitter says nick sandman is a white supremacist like so many celebrities did. Twitter is not liable, they aren't the publisher. If section 230 was a negative right. If you were CNN, you would legally become like twitter but censor every subject to the point that people can only say nick sandman is a white supremacist. You aren't liable anymore right? You can say whatever you want right?
        danShumway 4y ago
        > I'm not a supreme court justice. Okay, so you have even less authority to dictate what Section 230 actually means. Are you arguing about what Section 230 actually does, or are you arguing about what you personally would like it to do, because those are two very different conversations to have. > So why does section 230 exist? For a lot of reasons, one giant one being that Congress wanted to make it easier for companies to censor in certain situations. Section 230 was born out of two lawsuits about illegal content against two early Internet companies, one completely unmoderated and one where the company in question had been trying to do some moderation, but some illegal content still slipped past. The one who was doing no moderation at all successfully got off with the defense that it was not a publisher, the company that had been doing some moderation didn't. From Wikipedia: > Service providers made their Congresspersons aware of these cases, believing that if followed by other courts across the nation, the cases would stifle the growth of the Internet. United States Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) had read an article about the two cases and felt the decisions were backwards. "It struck me that if that rule was going to take hold then the internet would become the Wild West and nobody would have any incentive to keep the internet civil," Cox stated. Section 230 has a number of benefits, including benefits that reduce censorship online by making it safer to operate smaller forums (including HN). But it also allows communities to more easily moderate without that moderation being treated as itself a liability risk. But don't take my word for it, go read up on the actual people who wrote the bill that are still alive today and who have on multiple occasions commented on their intentions. The bill was never intended to restrict what content platforms could moderate. > You aren't liable anymore right? You can say whatever you want right? Section 230 is a protection against speech that your users say. CNN is still liable for its own speech (and so is Twitter for that matter), but it is not liable for the speech that happens in its comments section.
- TAKEMYMONEY 4y ago
  Yes Section 230 is mentioned in the article.
34679 4y ago
The biggest threat to democracy is the dissolution of faith in democracy caused by immensely popular politicians who fail to keep the promises that get them elected. I'm not just talking about one party.
- api 4y ago
  Also by things like lying us into a war in Iraq or the 2008 bank bailouts where the people who caused the financial crash were all given a bonus and a raise while austerity was pushed on the rest of the economy. Also letting our infrastructure crumble while spending unlimited amounts of money on Middle East wars, restricting housing supply to lock a generation or two out of housing, allowing two generations to be saddled with unprecedented amounts of student loan debt while tuition goes up unchecked, and so on. I could keep going. Our political class has lost the peoples' trust because they don't deserve it. They've shown nothing but incompetence and corruption for decades. I'm speaking of both major political parties. That loss of trust has opened the door to a ton of insane garbage, but the blame for that rests on the political class of the past 50 years for dropping the ball in so many ways.
  - sharemywin 4y ago
    I think the problem is "we the people" keep forgetting that the government is what we make of it and "hiring" a president every 4 years and then ignoring our responsibility until the next election isn't how this thing is supposed to work.
    - api 4y ago
      I agree that apathy is a huge part of the problem, but I also think our two party system is a major issue. We need something like ranked choice voting to open things up a bit and allow challengers to at least threaten the mainstream parties. Otherwise sometimes there's just no good choice.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      Yes, I don't like either party and I think they are corrupt, what do you suggest?
theandrewbailey 4y ago
Why is unregulated social media suddenly a problem? They've been doing questionable actions for a decade. How come that when yesterday's misinformation becomes today's possibility, no accounts get unbanned? How come tech platforms have routinely banned the same person's accounts all on the same day? Tell me again about Hunter's laptop; I think that would have been extremely relevant about 2 years ago.
- protomyth 4y ago
  Because it wasn't unregulated social media. It was regulated by people friendly to him. Now, it will be regulated by someone that he has no influence over. I would imagine that Musk doesn't care if he is invited to the cool kid parties.
  - aww_dang 4y ago
    On the surface Musk's preferences would appear to be that way, but appearances can be deceiving. Would you be surprised if Musk introduced mandatory digital ID to use Twitter? A sugar-coated limited handout of freedom, combined with the digital ID medicine the globalists have been demanding wouldn't be surprising. If you read his comments carefully, this interpretation isn't far-fetched.
    - protomyth 4y ago
      I don't doubt he could go that way. I just don't think he is loyal to the same people twitter is currently loyal to.
      - aww_dang 4y ago
        I suspect that he may be the other goal post and a free-kick will be performed.
- Clubber 4y ago
  News is the traditional messenger they have control over. News is dying and social media is taking over. They're trying to gain control over social media so they can control the message again. Who is they? The two political parties who are just private organizations by the way. When you can't control the message, people start asking uncomfortable questions like, "Why are you allowing companies to outsource jobs and factories to escape labor and environmental regulations while saving a ton of money?" "Why is healthcare so expensive?" "Why haven't you put any type of caps on pharmaceuticals?" "Why are we spending billions on homelessness and homelessness keeps increasing?" "Why did we spend $300 million a day in Afghanistan for 20 years?"
jeffreyrogers 4y ago
It's sad to realize how quick a substantial number of people are to discard what are ostensibly core principles when they conflict with their ability to exercise power.
- tmp_anon_22 4y ago
  What core principles have been lost? If you want to argue Twitter is a public space where public figures should be able to say whatever they want, I'm going to argue your front lawn is too.
  - mysecretaccount 4y ago
    ISPs are private businesses too. Would you be fine with ISPs regulating speech?
    - Cd00d 4y ago
      I'd delay that discussion until a time when ISPs don't tend to be regional monopolies.
      - mysecretaccount 4y ago
        Yes, this is my point. You could make a similar argument about the social media oligopolies.
    - tmp_anon_22 4y ago
      With ISPs I think of the precedent of TV and Radio being censored from their inception, pirate broadcasting non-withstanding. Are we going to say free speech was lost in 1920 when you couldn't say ** on the radio?
    - lisper 4y ago
      ISPs are utilities. There is only one internet, just as there is only one power grid, only one road network, only one water distribution network. But there are many social media platforms, and it's easy to start new ones. That is the reason that private censorship on social media platforms is acceptable but censorship by ISPs is not.
peacefulhat 4y ago
ok I pick the other side, then.
ramesh31 4y ago
Like the unregulated social media that got him elected?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
busyant 4y ago
He's correct. So is regulated social media. Damned if you do...
- dannykwells 4y ago
  Because our democracy wasn't stable for 250+ years before social media was invented?? Social media is not the same as a free press, freedom of speech, etc. Equating the two is quite dangerous, imo.
shkkmo 4y ago
> billionaire Elon Musk has been mounting a hostile takeover bid of the popular service Twitter That's some pretty incompetent reporting. Edit: Can we change the URL to the original source instead of driving traffic to bad journalism? https://barackobama.medium.com/my-remarks-on-disinformation-at-stanford-7d7af7ba28af https://barackobama.medium.com/my-remarks-on-disinformation-...
- basisword 4y ago
  >> >> billionaire Elon Musk has been mounting a hostile takeover bid of the popular service Twitter >> That's some pretty incompetent reporting. What's incompetent about that? It seems to be exactly what he did...
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    A "hostile takeover bid" has a specific meaning, this takeover is not hostile and no attempt was made to make a hostile takeover.
    - basisword 4y ago
      The eventual take over wasn't hostile but this article was written last week. It was something that was a possibility at that time.
      - shkkmo 4y ago
        It was something that was speculated about. I have seen zero evidence that Musk tried to lay the ground work (e.g. lining up the loans or selling enough stocks to finance such am attempt). This "journalist" doesn't qualify anything and makes a statement of fact that Musk mounted hostile takeover bid. That is simply bad reporting.
  - ragnot 4y ago
    He did a leveraged buy-out of the company. The poison pill negated his hostile takeover attempt.
Proven 4y ago
newaccount2021 4y ago
avalys 4y ago
I remember when Obama got elected in 2008, all the pundits were gleefully explaining how he was a master of social media and had this expert team of young digital natives who had used big data to target their bring out the vote efforts, blah blah blah, and how the doddering old Republicans were going to be left in the dust and would never win an election again.
- birken 4y ago
  Well to be fair, Democrats won in "landslides" in 2008, 2012 and 2020.
  - skippyboxedhero 4y ago
    And then their main opponent was removed from all social media. Masterful work. Real politics. That is how you win.
    - kajecounterhack 4y ago
      Their main opponent also tried to stage a coup. And for years, this person wasn't removed despite many other posts that would have otherwised violated ToS -- special treatment for being a head of state. So there's some context to this quip.
      - Mikeb85 4y ago
        > Their main opponent also tried to stage a coup. Please, calling it a coup is a joke. France has larger demonstrations almost monthly (at least during non-Covid times), I've seen larger riots in the aftermath of hockey games. It was a few rednecks rioting...
        timkpaine 4y ago
        A few rednecks, millionaires, members of congress, family of Supreme Court justices, White House staff....
Covzire 4y ago
Let me guess, the one and only metric for success will be how many of Mr. Obama's friends get and stay elected.
- innocentoldguy 4y ago
  Exactly!!! Why do you think they’re wheeling this corrupt, lying old turd (Obama) out right after one of the Democrat party’s main vehicles for censorship and disinformation was bought by Elon Musk? Also, why do you think the MSM started whinging this week about how voices could be silenced by “big tech” and nobody would know until after the election? Democrats love big tech as long as it is beholden to them. When it is not, they start accusing others of the very things they’ve been doing all along.
McLaren_Ferrari 4y ago
Well Obama...I am pro free speach And I empathize and understand people who talk about free speech in its most unadulterated way. But there are tradeoffs and costs, lots of them have been already detailed so I'll focus on something else: productivity and initiative. Social media lifted the veil on really how easily manipulated the avg. individual is. There is no turning back from that, no turning back from not knowing that information, it's almost like when you first get the concept of mortality and that one day you are going to die. And those using social media to manipulate the avg. individual could be left-wing, right-wing, independent, greens, libertarians etc. But as we are seeing these days also billionaires with an agenda , cults, religious movements, corporations, NGOs, Secret Services etc. For a person trying to make a living in this world, that's really scary, it damages productivity because given all the above people become extremely defensive and think twice before taking any initiative....they could become the target of some cult or political movement with just a simple action such as firing an employee or speaking their mind about something. And the attack could come from every side or even multiple sides
psyc 4y ago
The phrase 'threat to democracy' in this context at this time ought to be a red flag that someone's trying to pull a fast one. Remember when people only wanted to add 'hate speech' to the exception list (things that 'free speech' supposedly 'never meant')? Now it's expanded to hate speech and 'false or misleading information'. And I'm seeing this messaging pretty frequently in a variety of public fora. Obama is just changing his tune with the wind. https://youtu.be/mi5da2AhDCY https://youtu.be/mi5da2AhDCY Where are all the politicians raising the alarm about plutocracy as a threat to democracy? (I know there are a few who do, at least nominally.)
- pydry 4y ago
  >Where are all the politicians raising the alarm about plutocracy as a threat to democracy? Either they're taking fat stacks of cash and keeping quiet about it or they're being subjected to a relentless character assassination campaign that is largely working as intended.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  > Where are all the politicians raising the alarm about plutocracy as a threat to democracy? Too busy astroturfing social media in an effort to drum up popular support for their status as plutocrats to comment publicly on the subject, I'd wager.
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  It is a threat to democracy when your opponent has access to social media. But not when your opponent gets removed from social media. The principles of politicians on full display. Btw, I don't think moderation is hard. If you are saying Trump is guilty of "hate speech" or whatever, and the Taliban isn't...the problem isn't the rules, it is how you apply them (which is a natural consequence of people at these companies not being interested in moderation at all, Dorsey couldn't contain his glee after he removed Trump...it was a personal choice, not moderation). Social media companies make the same mistake that most people make when they consider politics: they believe things they don't agree with are immoral. It was never the task of social media companies to be the religious police, they just appointed themselves.
eigenrick 4y ago
Leveraging social media to create a divide is a symptom of the problem. The underlying problem is the sheer amount of money and power to be gained by winning in America's 2-party system. So much so, that winning at all costs is the norm. Winning at all costs, includes (but is not limited to) leveraging bots, PR firms and activists on social media to make one side fear and hate the other.
SllX 4y ago
Time was once a POTUS that had served two terms already was done, they would go into retirement and you would hear very little out of them. Maybe they’d be trotted out for an endorsement or party morale boosting speech but that was about the extent of it. I liked that.
- TAKEMYMONEY 4y ago
  Thanks for letting us know what you liked. That wasn't true of Dubya, Clinton, Reagan...how far back is "time was once?" Wasn't true of Jackson either. Do you really think Trump would ever stop having rallies under any condition?
- 1shooner 4y ago
  There is actually a long history of public and political activity from former presidents. Washington was recalled to lead the army (and thereby support the Federalists) in 1797. Taft was a supreme court justice, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Johnson and Tyler went to Congress. More recently Carter of course is a public figure for Habitat for Humanity and other causes, and negotiated with Hamas. Ford called for recognizing the PLO in 1981 and for removing Saddam Hussein in 1991, and support Carter on the Panama Canal treaty. I know both Clinton and Carter started public policy think tanks, not sure how they could be more overt at wanting to influence future politics. Prior to the current primary system, an endorsement at a party convention wasn't just pageantry, it did carry more political capital than it does today.
xiphias2 4y ago
Leaders of the websites have no problem with this. Jack Dorsey was asked about it by the congress, and he just told them to make a law and Twitter will follow it. Mark said the same thing basically. What's important is to get a bipartisan concensus about it.
infiniteL0Op 4y ago
vdnkh 4y ago
- aadvark69 4y ago
  >alt-right In today's day and age that just means "not far left"
  - vdnkh 4y ago
    Case in point
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Lol as if America has a "left" Wake me up when there's a non-marginalized figure in American politics capable of putting a bill through congress to nationalize a major private corporation. Or when universal healthcare has more than a snowball's chance in hell of becoming reality (and no, the abomination that is Obamacare is not that) Then we can talk about the "left." The thing you're complaining about is presumably the liberal culture wars and identity politics, which is only co-traveling with core left wing issues, and is the only part of the "left" permitted in American discourse.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      We have universal healthcare now, you just have to be 65 to qualify. The easiest way to get healthcare for everybody and not bankrupt the system is to lower the qualifying age 5 years every few years. So make it 60 to qualify, then allow the markets to adjust, then in 5-10 years, make it 55, etc. We're already paying for the most expensive demographic of our population: people 65 and older. The lower we go with the qualifying age, the cheaper each adjustment to the system will be to the taxpayer. Nobody gets campaign contributions for that though.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
basisword 4y ago
I feel like social media as it currently operates cannot operate alongside absolute free speech. The reason is really simple - the social media websites don't simply allow you to follow people and see what they say. They show you 'recommended content', they push content on you via features like 'trending' which also have editing. By doing this they're choosing which speech the user should be made to view. If Twitter (for example) simply showed me a feed of what people I follow post in chronological order and did nothing else then the whole absolute free speech thing would be fine. But they choose to get involved and show the 'outrageous' content that will try to get me to 'engage'. You can't have it both ways. Either take responsibility for all the content on your platform, or relinquish the power to manipulate and editorialise.
rich_sasha 4y ago
I don't get the avalanche of criticism. First, enforcing strict freedom of speech is regulation too. It goes both ways. Don't like Twitter censoring tweets? Regulate it to force it to publish everything. Or everything but racist stuff. Or whatever you want. Unregulated Twitter can do whatever, it can change your tweets, put words into your mouth etc. Second, any common good ends up abused if you allow it. Ever been to an unmaintained park where anything is allowed? It's all dog shit and broken glass. It stops being useful as a park, stops being useful to the majority of users, stops being useful to anyone but a small minority who abuse what should be a common resource. Social media have become common assets (at least the service they provide) so it seems natural to me that they need same protection. I don't mind people writing what I consider crazy or even mildly offensive / racist etc. I mind organised groups abusing such spaces to create impression of popular opinion with malicious intent. We now know beyond reasonable doubt this does happen.
ProAm 4y ago
The transparency drone king has spoken. All must listen. This is his own flip flop on the principles he ran on.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Why is changing your position a decade later when the facts have changed considered a bad thing?
  - ProAm 4y ago
    It's not but this feels like he is doing it out of self interest and power and not for the good of society.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
dmix 4y ago
When information regulation is combined with all powerful intellegence agencies you get a very dangerous combination. Their whole game is deception and controlling what information gets out, then covering their asses when anything goes wrong. Zero transparency, 'due process', or independent review processes. It's incredibly easy to manufacture 'consensus' among gov experts and feed 'anonymous sources' to news agencies and influencers. This goes way beyond trying to tip the scales of partisan culture wars.
Ambolia 4y ago
Seems like a lot of people have a problem when a specific billionaire (Musk) purchases Twitter. But why do the rest of billionaires get an exception when they own Twitter or other media companies? It seems like the free speech and the "billionaire" label is just a certain group of people use to protect their interest more than it is any genuinely held believes.
fsociety999 4y ago
> One “of the biggest reasons for democracies weakening is the profound change that’s taking place in how we communicate and consume information,” Obama told an audience in a keynote speech at a symposium at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center. This is some pretty impressive Newspeak. The reason Democracy is “weakening” is because people have been lied to by elected representatives in both parties as well as institutions and traditional media outlets for decades. Social media has finally given the public a chance to learn about a lot of things that would have simply been covered up or ignored otherwise. What it sounds like Obama is really pushing for here is government/totalitarian control over what speech should be permitted, the exact opposite of free speech. A healthy representative Democracy requires information flows that are complete so the public actually knows what their elected representatives are doing. Without this, it creates a situation of mistrust and people do not have the relevant information they need when they go to the polls to vote for their representatives. Sunlight is the best disinfectant as they say. This is the real fear that most of these people have when it comes to Musk buying Twitter. They are afraid he will remove censorship controls already in place on the platform.
- kajecounterhack 4y ago
  > What it sounds like Obama is really pushing for here is government/totalitarian control over what speech should be permitted, the exact opposite of free speech. You make it sound like there is zero nuance to permitted speech as it is today in the US. You can't shout fire in a theater, you can't post spam on Facebook and expect it to stick, and right now, certain kinds of hate or expression are also banned by virtually every common space's TOS. Social media is an invention of the past 20 years. It's entirely factual that how we communicate and consume information is changing, and it's also factual that our news sources are in danger from two ends: from bias by the platform owners, and from manipulation from outside forces (e.g. foreign propoganda / misinformation). It's pretty naive to advocate for unfiltered social media. If you want that, there are certainly some venues for it (e.g. 4chan). Facebook and Twitter have huge problems relating to hate speech, misinformation, and misinformation. Doesn't it seem problematic to you that huge swaths of people are bandwagoning onto unscientific / insane conspiracy theories like QAnon? This sort of behavior could not have existed without modern social media, and I find it pretty sad that anyone would say this is desirable. > The reason Democracy is “weakening” is because people have been lied to by elected representatives in both parties as well as institutions and traditional media outlets for decades. Democracy is weakening because people like Trump enter office and act like they are above the law -- refusing to cooperate with the other elected bodies, refusing to provide financial transparency, trading on insider information, directly using their positions to enrich themselves and their families, trying to coerce civil servants to abandon their responsibilities in favor of whatever is politically expedient (e.g. declaring voter fraud where there is none, eschewing public health guidance advocated by scientists and public health experts, etc). Democracy is weakening because media outlets are being purchased by billionaires in an environment with increasing wealth disparity. Democracy is weakening because foreign adversaries are leveraging social media to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories are being perpetuated via new memetic and contrarian tendencies. All of this could be improved with the help of responsible moderation to decrease sockpuppet accounts and misinformation, as well as regulated standards for acceptable behavior in the commons. If you want totally unfettered speech, nobody is stopping you from starting your own private discord server or website. But you can't just say whatever in public commons.
dcole2929 4y ago
I'm not really sure why this is taking on a political slant from commenters here aside from the fact that Obama as a politician is a polarizing figure. The content of what he said is completely accurate and just about any credible researcher in the field will tell you so. Misinformation and especially Disinformation is a very large problems that will have to be addressed in some way if we're to have an actual functioning democracy. They certainly aren't the only issues we face, but calling for platforms to take greater accountability isn't and shouldn't somehow be viewed as political. It doesn't matter whether you're for red, blue, putin, Snoop or the Pope. If the places people go to consume information are allowed to become inundated with blatantly false information, that's a bad thing. There is absolutely an argument that Twitter, FB, etc. should never have become peoples sources for information but the reality is that this is the world we live in and for better and worse and we need to craft policy based on people's actions not what they should do.
- aww_dang 4y ago
  The problem isn't with who the speaker is. It could be Obama or anyone else. The problem is who gets to define misinformation. Should we have a government ministry of truth? I hope posters here can appreciate how problematic that is, not just from an epistemological standpoint, but also the practical implications.
  - dcole2929 4y ago
    Yes obviously, that's a problem. But again it's one of policy. There are lots of hard problems. Generally, avoiding hard problems isn't a great solution. Maybe for some things but when the counter is the end of democracy then that's not really an option. Anyone that set's out to solve this should go in with a really specific definition (something like verifiable false based on expert consensus), make it enforceable with stiff penalties, and appealable to the courts. It's not perfect, it requires constant monitoring and updating, and lot's of work to make sure it's not like every other regulatory body, and get's subverted or otherwise undermined by political activity. But none of that is impossible. Possibly improbable given current conditions, but regardless something we should be having conversations about. A ministry of truth with a well defined scope isn't any more unreasonable than a ministry of food cleanliness (FDA). The same way we regulate what technical exports a company can make when it affects our national security, it is completely reasonable to do the same with the telecommunication companies that can affect equally large impacts on our internal security.
Mikeb85 4y ago
What he really means is that unregulated social media could cause his side to lose... Media regulation is what dictatorships do, not democracies. The left should focus more on what it claims to support (the plight of the working class) if they want to win elections... People are upset about inflation and wages and the left establishment in most countries is doing fuck all.
AlexandrB 4y ago
Wouldn't it be crazy if "the great filter" implied by the Fermi Paradox is not something like nuclear weapons but the kind of all-pervasive mass communication the internet allows? It's easy to see the threat from a huge bomb, much harder to see the threat of a "Tower of Babel" style infopocalypse where civilizations can no longer organize themselves to do anything significant.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > Tower of Babel That's an interesting analogy, but I'd like to turn a positive spin on it: now that the tower is being built and we can all talk to each other, the old Gods are losing their power and it makes them afraid. But that's good news for us, the plebs, since the interests of the old Gods aren't aligned with ours: > Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
  - kjeetgill 4y ago
    To overindulge what was already a weak navel-gazing metaphor, the whole point of that story was to warn against hubris that sounds just like: > But that's good news for us, the plebs, since the interests of the old Gods aren't aligned with ours And it kind of mirrors how I feel about this whole situation and sentiments like yours: just naïveté and hubris.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      :-) You have a valid point about overindulging in that metaphor, but I guess I can't stop myself. Genesis was supposedly written by one of the main promoters of the guy who didn't want the tower built. We should be aware of his biases when it comes to moralizing. History is written by the victors. Hopefully the next version of Genesis will be written by those who want people to talk to each other freely.
unethical_ban 4y ago
There is a creepy amount of skepticism on his comments. FB and Twitter have no obligation to public health. Their entire profit motive is to burn the fucking country to the ground if their Q3 earnings look good. Put neighbor against neighbor? Why not? Destroy the foundations of democracy to maximize engagement? Sure! So a politician (flawed as he is and with some withering disappointments as a leader) says "Hey, this shit is unhealthy for democracy!" It seems so obvious that he is correct, but it seems more important to people here to disagree with the messenger than to consider the message.
innocentoldguy 4y ago
The only threat to democracy that the free flow of information creates is to stymie the ability of corrupt politicians to maintain power. This is a good threat for our Republic to have.
aww_dang 4y ago
The misinformation fear mongering is more dangerous than any of the hypothetical boogeymen. Why trust individuals to vote, if you cannot trust their discernment? If you must dictate truth and exclude information you disagree with, then at what point are regulators predetermining the outcome of the democratic process? There are definite shortcomings to democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a popular critique. Presenting democracy as a virtue to be defended is problematic to be sure. But presenting it as a virtue while attacking the premises of democracy? I cannot decide which is more absurd, a gov. regulator presuming to have an exclusive license on objective truth as if privy to divine revelation, or suggesting that individuals making their own decisions in regards to the information they consume is dangerous to democracy. Humanity cannot regulate away "misinformation" anymore than Icarus could touch the sun. Is it hard to accept this as legitimate hubris. Propagandists desiring to regain tighter control over the flow of information seems infinitely more probable. Does anyone else here remember when we said, "Information wants to be free" ?
nope1234 4y ago
He didn’t seem to mind when it got him elected.
weezin 4y ago
I read this as "people are too dumb to know whats right and wrong". If you don't agree with something that is said, use your speech to argue against it, sorry you won't be able to shutdown others you disagree with.
beej71 4y ago
It's probably more informative to read his speech than to read this LA Times article with it's near-clickbait headline. I get the impression from the comments that people think Obama's out for government control of social networks, but that's not what he says in his speech. https://barackobama.medium.com/my-remarks-on-disinformation-at-stanford-7d7af7ba28af https://barackobama.medium.com/my-remarks-on-disinformation-... He's not wrong about social media being a potential tool of destruction of democracy either by excessive regulation or excessive deregulation, and lists examples. His question is, can we do better? Is it time to revisit section 230, for example? How do we train ourselves to be resistant to the forces on social media that are actively attempting to manipulate us with clickbait headlines? The speech is worth a read.
TYPE_FASTER 4y ago
It's telling that the one topic Democrats and Republicans agree on is making changes to, or repealing, Section 230.
clearleaf 4y ago
The internet was a hell of a lot less regulated in 2008 than it was in 2016

52 points by Fervicus 4y ago

Section 230 is the regulation. >any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or The problem was that censorship on social media has not been done in good faith and has far exceeded these regulations. Yet nobody ever got around to punishing social media for their violation of these regulations. Now that Elon has made the effort to get Twitter into compliance and stop violating regulations, now you call them unregulated and want to change the rules? I hope that Biden and friends try to change the rules so close to midterms. Lets see how that democracy goes after that.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Yet nobody ever got around to punishing social media for their violation of these regulations. That's a negative regulation, thee only actor that can violate it is government. It is impossible for a social media platform to violate the cited regulation. It's true that if there is another regulation applicable to platform conduct, there are platform actions that would take the platform out of the immunity provided by the cited regulation (but those hypothetical other regulations would also be constrained by the First Amendment, whether or not the Section 230 immunity applied.)
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >That's a negative regulation, thee only actor that can violate it is government. It is impossible for a social media platform to violate the cited regulation. No, they list out exactly what they may censor like porn. Twitter doesn't do that. It's their choice to do less and that's fine. The problem is that they can't do more. That's a positive regulation. >It's true that if there is another regulation applicable to platform conduct, there are platform actions that would take the platform out of the immunity provided by the cited regulation (but those hypothetical other regulations would also be constrained by the First Amendment, whether or not the Section 230 immunity applied.) It's a positive regulation because we regulate media more. We say as a publisher you cant do lots of things that say wikipedia or twitter can do. The caveat is that you can't later regulate more so that you basically are a publisher but without the liability. That would break the system. Something the article missed is that Obama did explain that anything they do can't conflict with free speech. Therefore it's pointless to go more than section 230.
  - danShumway 4y ago
    > No, they list out exactly what they may censor like porn. Twitter doesn't do that. It's their choice to do less and that's fine. The problem is that they can't do more. That's a positive regulation. That is not the way that any court I'm aware of has ever interpreted Section 230, and it's not the way the original author of Section 230 has ever interpreted it either. Section 230 is not a list that describes the only things you are allowed to censor. It's a regulation on the government that prevents them from treating proactive moderation as liability for other unmoderated content. Section 230 does not require that a site avoid censoring certain kinds of information.
    - incomingpain 4y ago
      >That is not the way that any court I'm aware of has ever interpreted Section 230, and it's not the way the original author of Section 230 has ever interpreted it either. I'm not a supreme court justice. >Section 230 is not a list that describes the only things you are allowed to censor. It's a regulation on the government that prevents them from treating proactive moderation as liability for unmoderated content. So why does section 230 exist? In a situation like if you are CNN. You publish lies on your platform like Nick Sandman is a white supremacist. You are liable as the publisher. If someone on twitter says nick sandman is a white supremacist like so many celebrities did. Twitter is not liable, they aren't the publisher. If section 230 was a negative right. If you were CNN, you would legally become like twitter but censor every subject to the point that people can only say nick sandman is a white supremacist. You aren't liable anymore right? You can say whatever you want right?
      - danShumway 4y ago
        > I'm not a supreme court justice. Okay, so you have even less authority to dictate what Section 230 actually means. Are you arguing about what Section 230 actually does, or are you arguing about what you personally would like it to do, because those are two very different conversations to have. > So why does section 230 exist? For a lot of reasons, one giant one being that Congress wanted to make it easier for companies to censor in certain situations. Section 230 was born out of two lawsuits about illegal content against two early Internet companies, one completely unmoderated and one where the company in question had been trying to do some moderation, but some illegal content still slipped past. The one who was doing no moderation at all successfully got off with the defense that it was not a publisher, the company that had been doing some moderation didn't. From Wikipedia: > Service providers made their Congresspersons aware of these cases, believing that if followed by other courts across the nation, the cases would stifle the growth of the Internet. United States Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) had read an article about the two cases and felt the decisions were backwards. "It struck me that if that rule was going to take hold then the internet would become the Wild West and nobody would have any incentive to keep the internet civil," Cox stated. Section 230 has a number of benefits, including benefits that reduce censorship online by making it safer to operate smaller forums (including HN). But it also allows communities to more easily moderate without that moderation being treated as itself a liability risk. But don't take my word for it, go read up on the actual people who wrote the bill that are still alive today and who have on multiple occasions commented on their intentions. The bill was never intended to restrict what content platforms could moderate. > You aren't liable anymore right? You can say whatever you want right? Section 230 is a protection against speech that your users say. CNN is still liable for its own speech (and so is Twitter for that matter), but it is not liable for the speech that happens in its comments section.
TAKEMYMONEY 4y ago
Yes Section 230 is mentioned in the article.

34679 4y ago

The biggest threat to democracy is the dissolution of faith in democracy caused by immensely popular politicians who fail to keep the promises that get them elected. I'm not just talking about one party.

api 4y ago
Also by things like lying us into a war in Iraq or the 2008 bank bailouts where the people who caused the financial crash were all given a bonus and a raise while austerity was pushed on the rest of the economy. Also letting our infrastructure crumble while spending unlimited amounts of money on Middle East wars, restricting housing supply to lock a generation or two out of housing, allowing two generations to be saddled with unprecedented amounts of student loan debt while tuition goes up unchecked, and so on. I could keep going. Our political class has lost the peoples' trust because they don't deserve it. They've shown nothing but incompetence and corruption for decades. I'm speaking of both major political parties. That loss of trust has opened the door to a ton of insane garbage, but the blame for that rests on the political class of the past 50 years for dropping the ball in so many ways.
- sharemywin 4y ago
  I think the problem is "we the people" keep forgetting that the government is what we make of it and "hiring" a president every 4 years and then ignoring our responsibility until the next election isn't how this thing is supposed to work.
  - api 4y ago
    I agree that apathy is a huge part of the problem, but I also think our two party system is a major issue. We need something like ranked choice voting to open things up a bit and allow challengers to at least threaten the mainstream parties. Otherwise sometimes there's just no good choice.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    Yes, I don't like either party and I think they are corrupt, what do you suggest?

theandrewbailey 4y ago

Why is unregulated social media suddenly a problem? They've been doing questionable actions for a decade. How come that when yesterday's misinformation becomes today's possibility, no accounts get unbanned? How come tech platforms have routinely banned the same person's accounts all on the same day? Tell me again about Hunter's laptop; I think that would have been extremely relevant about 2 years ago.

protomyth 4y ago
Because it wasn't unregulated social media. It was regulated by people friendly to him. Now, it will be regulated by someone that he has no influence over. I would imagine that Musk doesn't care if he is invited to the cool kid parties.
- aww_dang 4y ago
  On the surface Musk's preferences would appear to be that way, but appearances can be deceiving. Would you be surprised if Musk introduced mandatory digital ID to use Twitter? A sugar-coated limited handout of freedom, combined with the digital ID medicine the globalists have been demanding wouldn't be surprising. If you read his comments carefully, this interpretation isn't far-fetched.
  - protomyth 4y ago
    I don't doubt he could go that way. I just don't think he is loyal to the same people twitter is currently loyal to.
    - aww_dang 4y ago
      I suspect that he may be the other goal post and a free-kick will be performed.
Clubber 4y ago
News is the traditional messenger they have control over. News is dying and social media is taking over. They're trying to gain control over social media so they can control the message again. Who is they? The two political parties who are just private organizations by the way. When you can't control the message, people start asking uncomfortable questions like, "Why are you allowing companies to outsource jobs and factories to escape labor and environmental regulations while saving a ton of money?" "Why is healthcare so expensive?" "Why haven't you put any type of caps on pharmaceuticals?" "Why are we spending billions on homelessness and homelessness keeps increasing?" "Why did we spend $300 million a day in Afghanistan for 20 years?"

jeffreyrogers 4y ago

It's sad to realize how quick a substantial number of people are to discard what are ostensibly core principles when they conflict with their ability to exercise power.

tmp_anon_22 4y ago
What core principles have been lost? If you want to argue Twitter is a public space where public figures should be able to say whatever they want, I'm going to argue your front lawn is too.
- mysecretaccount 4y ago
  ISPs are private businesses too. Would you be fine with ISPs regulating speech?
  - Cd00d 4y ago
    I'd delay that discussion until a time when ISPs don't tend to be regional monopolies.
    - mysecretaccount 4y ago
      Yes, this is my point. You could make a similar argument about the social media oligopolies.
  - tmp_anon_22 4y ago
    With ISPs I think of the precedent of TV and Radio being censored from their inception, pirate broadcasting non-withstanding. Are we going to say free speech was lost in 1920 when you couldn't say ** on the radio?
  - lisper 4y ago
    ISPs are utilities. There is only one internet, just as there is only one power grid, only one road network, only one water distribution network. But there are many social media platforms, and it's easy to start new ones. That is the reason that private censorship on social media platforms is acceptable but censorship by ISPs is not.

peacefulhat 4y ago

ok I pick the other side, then.

ramesh31 4y ago

Like the unregulated social media that got him elected?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

busyant 4y ago

He's correct. So is regulated social media. Damned if you do...

dannykwells 4y ago
Because our democracy wasn't stable for 250+ years before social media was invented?? Social media is not the same as a free press, freedom of speech, etc. Equating the two is quite dangerous, imo.

shkkmo 4y ago

> billionaire Elon Musk has been mounting a hostile takeover bid of the popular service Twitter That's some pretty incompetent reporting. Edit: Can we change the URL to the original source instead of driving traffic to bad journalism? https://barackobama.medium.com/my-remarks-on-disinformation-at-stanford-7d7af7ba28af https://barackobama.medium.com/my-remarks-on-disinformation-...

basisword 4y ago
>> >> billionaire Elon Musk has been mounting a hostile takeover bid of the popular service Twitter >> That's some pretty incompetent reporting. What's incompetent about that? It seems to be exactly what he did...
- shkkmo 4y ago
  A "hostile takeover bid" has a specific meaning, this takeover is not hostile and no attempt was made to make a hostile takeover.
  - basisword 4y ago
    The eventual take over wasn't hostile but this article was written last week. It was something that was a possibility at that time.
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      It was something that was speculated about. I have seen zero evidence that Musk tried to lay the ground work (e.g. lining up the loans or selling enough stocks to finance such am attempt). This "journalist" doesn't qualify anything and makes a statement of fact that Musk mounted hostile takeover bid. That is simply bad reporting.
- ragnot 4y ago
  He did a leveraged buy-out of the company. The poison pill negated his hostile takeover attempt.

Proven 4y ago

newaccount2021 4y ago

avalys 4y ago

I remember when Obama got elected in 2008, all the pundits were gleefully explaining how he was a master of social media and had this expert team of young digital natives who had used big data to target their bring out the vote efforts, blah blah blah, and how the doddering old Republicans were going to be left in the dust and would never win an election again.

birken 4y ago
Well to be fair, Democrats won in "landslides" in 2008, 2012 and 2020.
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  And then their main opponent was removed from all social media. Masterful work. Real politics. That is how you win.
  - kajecounterhack 4y ago
    Their main opponent also tried to stage a coup. And for years, this person wasn't removed despite many other posts that would have otherwised violated ToS -- special treatment for being a head of state. So there's some context to this quip.
    - Mikeb85 4y ago
      > Their main opponent also tried to stage a coup. Please, calling it a coup is a joke. France has larger demonstrations almost monthly (at least during non-Covid times), I've seen larger riots in the aftermath of hockey games. It was a few rednecks rioting...
      - timkpaine 4y ago
        A few rednecks, millionaires, members of congress, family of Supreme Court justices, White House staff....

Covzire 4y ago

Let me guess, the one and only metric for success will be how many of Mr. Obama's friends get and stay elected.

innocentoldguy 4y ago
Exactly!!! Why do you think they’re wheeling this corrupt, lying old turd (Obama) out right after one of the Democrat party’s main vehicles for censorship and disinformation was bought by Elon Musk? Also, why do you think the MSM started whinging this week about how voices could be silenced by “big tech” and nobody would know until after the election? Democrats love big tech as long as it is beholden to them. When it is not, they start accusing others of the very things they’ve been doing all along.

McLaren_Ferrari 4y ago

Well Obama...I am pro free speach And I empathize and understand people who talk about free speech in its most unadulterated way. But there are tradeoffs and costs, lots of them have been already detailed so I'll focus on something else: productivity and initiative. Social media lifted the veil on really how easily manipulated the avg. individual is. There is no turning back from that, no turning back from not knowing that information, it's almost like when you first get the concept of mortality and that one day you are going to die. And those using social media to manipulate the avg. individual could be left-wing, right-wing, independent, greens, libertarians etc. But as we are seeing these days also billionaires with an agenda , cults, religious movements, corporations, NGOs, Secret Services etc. For a person trying to make a living in this world, that's really scary, it damages productivity because given all the above people become extremely defensive and think twice before taking any initiative....they could become the target of some cult or political movement with just a simple action such as firing an employee or speaking their mind about something. And the attack could come from every side or even multiple sides

psyc 4y ago

The phrase 'threat to democracy' in this context at this time ought to be a red flag that someone's trying to pull a fast one. Remember when people only wanted to add 'hate speech' to the exception list (things that 'free speech' supposedly 'never meant')? Now it's expanded to hate speech and 'false or misleading information'. And I'm seeing this messaging pretty frequently in a variety of public fora. Obama is just changing his tune with the wind. https://youtu.be/mi5da2AhDCY https://youtu.be/mi5da2AhDCY Where are all the politicians raising the alarm about plutocracy as a threat to democracy? (I know there are a few who do, at least nominally.)

pydry 4y ago
>Where are all the politicians raising the alarm about plutocracy as a threat to democracy? Either they're taking fat stacks of cash and keeping quiet about it or they're being subjected to a relentless character assassination campaign that is largely working as intended.
mumblemumble 4y ago
> Where are all the politicians raising the alarm about plutocracy as a threat to democracy? Too busy astroturfing social media in an effort to drum up popular support for their status as plutocrats to comment publicly on the subject, I'd wager.
skippyboxedhero 4y ago
It is a threat to democracy when your opponent has access to social media. But not when your opponent gets removed from social media. The principles of politicians on full display. Btw, I don't think moderation is hard. If you are saying Trump is guilty of "hate speech" or whatever, and the Taliban isn't...the problem isn't the rules, it is how you apply them (which is a natural consequence of people at these companies not being interested in moderation at all, Dorsey couldn't contain his glee after he removed Trump...it was a personal choice, not moderation). Social media companies make the same mistake that most people make when they consider politics: they believe things they don't agree with are immoral. It was never the task of social media companies to be the religious police, they just appointed themselves.

eigenrick 4y ago

Leveraging social media to create a divide is a symptom of the problem. The underlying problem is the sheer amount of money and power to be gained by winning in America's 2-party system. So much so, that winning at all costs is the norm. Winning at all costs, includes (but is not limited to) leveraging bots, PR firms and activists on social media to make one side fear and hate the other.

SllX 4y ago

Time was once a POTUS that had served two terms already was done, they would go into retirement and you would hear very little out of them. Maybe they’d be trotted out for an endorsement or party morale boosting speech but that was about the extent of it. I liked that.

TAKEMYMONEY 4y ago
Thanks for letting us know what you liked. That wasn't true of Dubya, Clinton, Reagan...how far back is "time was once?" Wasn't true of Jackson either. Do you really think Trump would ever stop having rallies under any condition?
1shooner 4y ago
There is actually a long history of public and political activity from former presidents. Washington was recalled to lead the army (and thereby support the Federalists) in 1797. Taft was a supreme court justice, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Johnson and Tyler went to Congress. More recently Carter of course is a public figure for Habitat for Humanity and other causes, and negotiated with Hamas. Ford called for recognizing the PLO in 1981 and for removing Saddam Hussein in 1991, and support Carter on the Panama Canal treaty. I know both Clinton and Carter started public policy think tanks, not sure how they could be more overt at wanting to influence future politics. Prior to the current primary system, an endorsement at a party convention wasn't just pageantry, it did carry more political capital than it does today.

xiphias2 4y ago

Leaders of the websites have no problem with this. Jack Dorsey was asked about it by the congress, and he just told them to make a law and Twitter will follow it. Mark said the same thing basically. What's important is to get a bipartisan concensus about it.

infiniteL0Op 4y ago

vdnkh 4y ago

aadvark69 4y ago
>alt-right In today's day and age that just means "not far left"
- vdnkh 4y ago
  Case in point
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Lol as if America has a "left" Wake me up when there's a non-marginalized figure in American politics capable of putting a bill through congress to nationalize a major private corporation. Or when universal healthcare has more than a snowball's chance in hell of becoming reality (and no, the abomination that is Obamacare is not that) Then we can talk about the "left." The thing you're complaining about is presumably the liberal culture wars and identity politics, which is only co-traveling with core left wing issues, and is the only part of the "left" permitted in American discourse.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    We have universal healthcare now, you just have to be 65 to qualify. The easiest way to get healthcare for everybody and not bankrupt the system is to lower the qualifying age 5 years every few years. So make it 60 to qualify, then allow the markets to adjust, then in 5-10 years, make it 55, etc. We're already paying for the most expensive demographic of our population: people 65 and older. The lower we go with the qualifying age, the cheaper each adjustment to the system will be to the taxpayer. Nobody gets campaign contributions for that though.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
cato_the_elder 4y ago

basisword 4y ago

I feel like social media as it currently operates cannot operate alongside absolute free speech. The reason is really simple - the social media websites don't simply allow you to follow people and see what they say. They show you 'recommended content', they push content on you via features like 'trending' which also have editing. By doing this they're choosing which speech the user should be made to view. If Twitter (for example) simply showed me a feed of what people I follow post in chronological order and did nothing else then the whole absolute free speech thing would be fine. But they choose to get involved and show the 'outrageous' content that will try to get me to 'engage'. You can't have it both ways. Either take responsibility for all the content on your platform, or relinquish the power to manipulate and editorialise.

rich_sasha 4y ago

I don't get the avalanche of criticism. First, enforcing strict freedom of speech is regulation too. It goes both ways. Don't like Twitter censoring tweets? Regulate it to force it to publish everything. Or everything but racist stuff. Or whatever you want. Unregulated Twitter can do whatever, it can change your tweets, put words into your mouth etc. Second, any common good ends up abused if you allow it. Ever been to an unmaintained park where anything is allowed? It's all dog shit and broken glass. It stops being useful as a park, stops being useful to the majority of users, stops being useful to anyone but a small minority who abuse what should be a common resource. Social media have become common assets (at least the service they provide) so it seems natural to me that they need same protection. I don't mind people writing what I consider crazy or even mildly offensive / racist etc. I mind organised groups abusing such spaces to create impression of popular opinion with malicious intent. We now know beyond reasonable doubt this does happen.

ProAm 4y ago

The transparency drone king has spoken. All must listen. This is his own flip flop on the principles he ran on.

colinmhayes 4y ago
Why is changing your position a decade later when the facts have changed considered a bad thing?
- ProAm 4y ago
  It's not but this feels like he is doing it out of self interest and power and not for the good of society.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

dmix 4y ago

When information regulation is combined with all powerful intellegence agencies you get a very dangerous combination. Their whole game is deception and controlling what information gets out, then covering their asses when anything goes wrong. Zero transparency, 'due process', or independent review processes. It's incredibly easy to manufacture 'consensus' among gov experts and feed 'anonymous sources' to news agencies and influencers. This goes way beyond trying to tip the scales of partisan culture wars.

Ambolia 4y ago

Seems like a lot of people have a problem when a specific billionaire (Musk) purchases Twitter. But why do the rest of billionaires get an exception when they own Twitter or other media companies? It seems like the free speech and the "billionaire" label is just a certain group of people use to protect their interest more than it is any genuinely held believes.

fsociety999 4y ago

> One “of the biggest reasons for democracies weakening is the profound change that’s taking place in how we communicate and consume information,” Obama told an audience in a keynote speech at a symposium at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center. This is some pretty impressive Newspeak. The reason Democracy is “weakening” is because people have been lied to by elected representatives in both parties as well as institutions and traditional media outlets for decades. Social media has finally given the public a chance to learn about a lot of things that would have simply been covered up or ignored otherwise. What it sounds like Obama is really pushing for here is government/totalitarian control over what speech should be permitted, the exact opposite of free speech. A healthy representative Democracy requires information flows that are complete so the public actually knows what their elected representatives are doing. Without this, it creates a situation of mistrust and people do not have the relevant information they need when they go to the polls to vote for their representatives. Sunlight is the best disinfectant as they say. This is the real fear that most of these people have when it comes to Musk buying Twitter. They are afraid he will remove censorship controls already in place on the platform.

kajecounterhack 4y ago
> What it sounds like Obama is really pushing for here is government/totalitarian control over what speech should be permitted, the exact opposite of free speech. You make it sound like there is zero nuance to permitted speech as it is today in the US. You can't shout fire in a theater, you can't post spam on Facebook and expect it to stick, and right now, certain kinds of hate or expression are also banned by virtually every common space's TOS. Social media is an invention of the past 20 years. It's entirely factual that how we communicate and consume information is changing, and it's also factual that our news sources are in danger from two ends: from bias by the platform owners, and from manipulation from outside forces (e.g. foreign propoganda / misinformation). It's pretty naive to advocate for unfiltered social media. If you want that, there are certainly some venues for it (e.g. 4chan). Facebook and Twitter have huge problems relating to hate speech, misinformation, and misinformation. Doesn't it seem problematic to you that huge swaths of people are bandwagoning onto unscientific / insane conspiracy theories like QAnon? This sort of behavior could not have existed without modern social media, and I find it pretty sad that anyone would say this is desirable. > The reason Democracy is “weakening” is because people have been lied to by elected representatives in both parties as well as institutions and traditional media outlets for decades. Democracy is weakening because people like Trump enter office and act like they are above the law -- refusing to cooperate with the other elected bodies, refusing to provide financial transparency, trading on insider information, directly using their positions to enrich themselves and their families, trying to coerce civil servants to abandon their responsibilities in favor of whatever is politically expedient (e.g. declaring voter fraud where there is none, eschewing public health guidance advocated by scientists and public health experts, etc). Democracy is weakening because media outlets are being purchased by billionaires in an environment with increasing wealth disparity. Democracy is weakening because foreign adversaries are leveraging social media to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories are being perpetuated via new memetic and contrarian tendencies. All of this could be improved with the help of responsible moderation to decrease sockpuppet accounts and misinformation, as well as regulated standards for acceptable behavior in the commons. If you want totally unfettered speech, nobody is stopping you from starting your own private discord server or website. But you can't just say whatever in public commons.

dcole2929 4y ago

I'm not really sure why this is taking on a political slant from commenters here aside from the fact that Obama as a politician is a polarizing figure. The content of what he said is completely accurate and just about any credible researcher in the field will tell you so. Misinformation and especially Disinformation is a very large problems that will have to be addressed in some way if we're to have an actual functioning democracy. They certainly aren't the only issues we face, but calling for platforms to take greater accountability isn't and shouldn't somehow be viewed as political. It doesn't matter whether you're for red, blue, putin, Snoop or the Pope. If the places people go to consume information are allowed to become inundated with blatantly false information, that's a bad thing. There is absolutely an argument that Twitter, FB, etc. should never have become peoples sources for information but the reality is that this is the world we live in and for better and worse and we need to craft policy based on people's actions not what they should do.

aww_dang 4y ago
The problem isn't with who the speaker is. It could be Obama or anyone else. The problem is who gets to define misinformation. Should we have a government ministry of truth? I hope posters here can appreciate how problematic that is, not just from an epistemological standpoint, but also the practical implications.
- dcole2929 4y ago
  Yes obviously, that's a problem. But again it's one of policy. There are lots of hard problems. Generally, avoiding hard problems isn't a great solution. Maybe for some things but when the counter is the end of democracy then that's not really an option. Anyone that set's out to solve this should go in with a really specific definition (something like verifiable false based on expert consensus), make it enforceable with stiff penalties, and appealable to the courts. It's not perfect, it requires constant monitoring and updating, and lot's of work to make sure it's not like every other regulatory body, and get's subverted or otherwise undermined by political activity. But none of that is impossible. Possibly improbable given current conditions, but regardless something we should be having conversations about. A ministry of truth with a well defined scope isn't any more unreasonable than a ministry of food cleanliness (FDA). The same way we regulate what technical exports a company can make when it affects our national security, it is completely reasonable to do the same with the telecommunication companies that can affect equally large impacts on our internal security.

Mikeb85 4y ago

What he really means is that unregulated social media could cause his side to lose... Media regulation is what dictatorships do, not democracies. The left should focus more on what it claims to support (the plight of the working class) if they want to win elections... People are upset about inflation and wages and the left establishment in most countries is doing fuck all.

AlexandrB 4y ago

Wouldn't it be crazy if "the great filter" implied by the Fermi Paradox is not something like nuclear weapons but the kind of all-pervasive mass communication the internet allows? It's easy to see the threat from a huge bomb, much harder to see the threat of a "Tower of Babel" style infopocalypse where civilizations can no longer organize themselves to do anything significant.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> Tower of Babel That's an interesting analogy, but I'd like to turn a positive spin on it: now that the tower is being built and we can all talk to each other, the old Gods are losing their power and it makes them afraid. But that's good news for us, the plebs, since the interests of the old Gods aren't aligned with ours: > Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
- kjeetgill 4y ago
  To overindulge what was already a weak navel-gazing metaphor, the whole point of that story was to warn against hubris that sounds just like: > But that's good news for us, the plebs, since the interests of the old Gods aren't aligned with ours And it kind of mirrors how I feel about this whole situation and sentiments like yours: just naïveté and hubris.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    :-) You have a valid point about overindulging in that metaphor, but I guess I can't stop myself. Genesis was supposedly written by one of the main promoters of the guy who didn't want the tower built. We should be aware of his biases when it comes to moralizing. History is written by the victors. Hopefully the next version of Genesis will be written by those who want people to talk to each other freely.

unethical_ban 4y ago

There is a creepy amount of skepticism on his comments. FB and Twitter have no obligation to public health. Their entire profit motive is to burn the fucking country to the ground if their Q3 earnings look good. Put neighbor against neighbor? Why not? Destroy the foundations of democracy to maximize engagement? Sure! So a politician (flawed as he is and with some withering disappointments as a leader) says "Hey, this shit is unhealthy for democracy!" It seems so obvious that he is correct, but it seems more important to people here to disagree with the messenger than to consider the message.

innocentoldguy 4y ago

The only threat to democracy that the free flow of information creates is to stymie the ability of corrupt politicians to maintain power. This is a good threat for our Republic to have.

aww_dang 4y ago

The misinformation fear mongering is more dangerous than any of the hypothetical boogeymen. Why trust individuals to vote, if you cannot trust their discernment? If you must dictate truth and exclude information you disagree with, then at what point are regulators predetermining the outcome of the democratic process? There are definite shortcomings to democracy. Tyranny of the majority is a popular critique. Presenting democracy as a virtue to be defended is problematic to be sure. But presenting it as a virtue while attacking the premises of democracy? I cannot decide which is more absurd, a gov. regulator presuming to have an exclusive license on objective truth as if privy to divine revelation, or suggesting that individuals making their own decisions in regards to the information they consume is dangerous to democracy. Humanity cannot regulate away "misinformation" anymore than Icarus could touch the sun. Is it hard to accept this as legitimate hubris. Propagandists desiring to regain tighter control over the flow of information seems infinitely more probable. Does anyone else here remember when we said, "Information wants to be free" ?

nope1234 4y ago

He didn’t seem to mind when it got him elected.

weezin 4y ago

I read this as "people are too dumb to know whats right and wrong". If you don't agree with something that is said, use your speech to argue against it, sorry you won't be able to shutdown others you disagree with.

beej71 4y ago

It's probably more informative to read his speech than to read this LA Times article with it's near-clickbait headline. I get the impression from the comments that people think Obama's out for government control of social networks, but that's not what he says in his speech. https://barackobama.medium.com/my-remarks-on-disinformation-at-stanford-7d7af7ba28af https://barackobama.medium.com/my-remarks-on-disinformation-... He's not wrong about social media being a potential tool of destruction of democracy either by excessive regulation or excessive deregulation, and lists examples. His question is, can we do better? Is it time to revisit section 230, for example? How do we train ourselves to be resistant to the forces on social media that are actively attempting to manipulate us with clickbait headlines? The speech is worth a read.

TYPE_FASTER 4y ago

It's telling that the one topic Democrats and Republicans agree on is making changes to, or repealing, Section 230.

clearleaf 4y ago

The internet was a hell of a lot less regulated in 2008 than it was in 2016