3 ms·

I'll be contrarian. These lawsuits are a Good Thing. Market forces push web sites and apps which are more addictive, more hateful, and more polarizing. Unless w

I'll be contrarian. These lawsuits are a Good Thing. Market forces push web sites and apps which are more addictive, more hateful, and more polarizing. Unless we have some mechanism to get that under control, things will continue to spiral. I don't want to work on harmful technologies, and without government intervention, there will be increasingly incentives to do things which are harmful. Market forces apply to everyone -- devs, executives, researchers, and otherwise. A regulatory climate is there to point those forces to good. Ideally, regulatory regimes don't ban things but, for example, tax or provide grants. I don't support outright bans. However, I would like to live with an internet which is, by default, safe for me and safe for my children. I support public funding of free software, laws like the GDPR, taxes on harmful things like sugar, and subsidies on healthy things. I'd like to live in a nice world. The way I'd like the world to look is that the default path is what's considered nice and healthy, but the non-default path is available to people who have other opinions.

vannevar 4y ago
I think the problem here is a mismatch between the idea of a common carrier, where distribution is content- and audience-neutral, and social media sites which actively analyze both content and audience and distribute the content accordingly. In the latter case, there is no public interest served by limiting liability, and such sites should absolutely be liable for content that they actively present to users.
- cush 4y ago
  Absolutely agree. I'm not sure why a governing body like the FCC isn't getting involved. TikTok is serving instructional videos of children committing acts of self-harm. If this was done on TV, it would be a multi-million dollar class action. Television has strict rules around content served to children. The UK is cracking down on this kind of thing, and I hope it spills into the US. Where is the liability?
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/115002206106-Internet-Complaints https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/1150022...
- frognumber 4y ago
  Absolutely agreed.
- FastMonkey 4y ago
  I never thought of it like that before. I absolutely agree!

vannevar 4y ago

I think the problem here is a mismatch between the idea of a common carrier, where distribution is content- and audience-neutral, and social media sites which actively analyze both content and audience and distribute the content accordingly. In the latter case, there is no public interest served by limiting liability, and such sites should absolutely be liable for content that they actively present to users.

cush 4y ago
Absolutely agree. I'm not sure why a governing body like the FCC isn't getting involved. TikTok is serving instructional videos of children committing acts of self-harm. If this was done on TV, it would be a multi-million dollar class action. Television has strict rules around content served to children. The UK is cracking down on this kind of thing, and I hope it spills into the US. Where is the liability?
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/115002206106-Internet-Complaints https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/1150022...
frognumber 4y ago
Absolutely agreed.
FastMonkey 4y ago
I never thought of it like that before. I absolutely agree!