5 ms·

> What I’ve come to realise since then is it’s not a joke. That’s the intention. Make it too prohibitive, risky, or impossible for public discourse to flow on s

> What I’ve come to realise since then is it’s not a joke. That’s the intention. Make it too prohibitive, risky, or impossible for public discourse to flow on smaller platforms and services; require the larger ones to become speech police and societal monitors This is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230. It takes politics back to the simpler age where there were just a few entities deciding what the public were talking about, and they could be reached with either a bribe or an arrest warrant. For a lot of politicians, who don't understand social media and mostly receive criticism on it, I can imagine them not caring if the costs of pre-screening all content ended up making social media accounts require annual payments. That would have the immediate effect of removing anonymity from users, and limiting online comments to people with disposable income (who could be profitably sued for insulting politicians).

pydry 4y ago
>That would have the immediate effect of removing anonymity from users, and limiting online comments to people with disposable income (who could be profitably sued for insulting politicians). This must be what they meant by "Singapore on Thames" coz it's certainly not about good economic policy or building enough social housing.
llamataboot 4y ago
I don't know about intentions, seems like the intention behind a ton of this stuff is to "protect the children", or "fix a problem" etc etc, but there just isn't enough awareness of possible side effects - not unique to tech legislation - just look at the policy ratchet of "you can always run by being tougher on crime, very hard to run on being not as tough" -- and arguably there is also some interaction with tech companies doing malicious compliance as well which generally means that the original intent of the legislation gets lost and user experience further degrades (cookie popups anyone?) -- I think it's too simplistic to make this a "politicians want to control the discourse" - there's always a bunch of tradeoffs in these things, and arguably the edge cases /are/ the base case (anyone that has done content moderation for a reasonably large community knows that it is very hard to make any sort of blanket rule, even if you have blanket rules)
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  It's a good mental practice to always be aware that stated intentions and actual reasons are entirely separate things. They do sometimes, mostly by chance, coincide. The advanced level of this is to be aware this applies even to your own actions.
  - llamataboot 4y ago
    The super advanced level is to realize it applies to all of your /thoughts/ which is mostly a pattern matching brain and personality built around the ways it found to make sense of some things justifying the chaos in retrospect :D
    - hallway_monitor 4y ago
      Correct but this is a different phenomenon. You are talking about post hoc justification for your behavior, where your brain is very good at making up stories that have nothing to do with the original motivation. I believe GP is referring to the fact that the true aim of much of this legislation had nothing to do with protecting kids from the beginning. They use that rhetoric because it's easy to get people on board and much more difficult to explain the real world implications for security.
      - dcow 4y ago
        I didn’t get that impression. You’re not wrong that something can be justified “for the children” but have an ulterior motive. But I think what’s being argued is that the initial motive is actually honestly for the children and that that goal blinds people to the reality of how bad or pointless or even perversely harmful the proposed solution is.
      - BurningFrog 4y ago
        I think it's a mix of cynical PR campaigns and honest activism, and I'm not smart enough to say which is the biggest factor in each instance. Separately, the honest activists are often lying to themselves, in the sense that their real motives are not what the they tell themselves and others.
Zak 4y ago
> [Preventing public discourse] is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230 What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect?
- camdat 4y ago
  >algorithms that have an editorial effect? Isnt this every non-chronilogical sorting algorithm?
  - kergonath 4y ago
    Even chronologically sorting ones. Any choice made is an editorial choice.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  If the goal is to prevent the ambiguous harm of "editorial effect", then I don't think it is fair to remove all platform immunity and punish the platform every time it fails to implement the correct, government-approved "editorial effect" instead of its own. It seems like the proponents of such a rule change are being underhanded, thinking "We can't ban companies from having a political bias, so we'll say that if the company has a political bias (i.e. any editorial/content policy), it becomes liable for any libel, or scams, or threats (written in any language) that appear anywhere on its platform". I might support a narrow form of this, though, which says that if a platform doesn't let you opt out of (legal content) filtering/re-ordering of content, then the platform has profited from you receiving messages with an unwanted bias (i.e. commercial speech), and therefore owes the user a small amount of statutory damages each time the user suffers some harm.
- xoa 4y ago
  >What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect? You mean, "repeal Section 230"? Because the entire point of Section 230 is to allow imperfect biased moderation without having to eliminate all user content. Such calls are ridiculous, stupid, or malicious on a host of levels. Making editorial decisions about what to allow on your own private property is core 1A Freedom of Speech, with caselaw dating back to well before the web. "Editorial effect" is also an utterly meaningless phrase. You probably have some silly politics thing in mind, but moderating against porn or violence also has an "editorial effect". So does having a forum devoted to aircraft or cats. I think trains and birds are great too. But if I want to run a forum specifically about aircraft or cats, I need to be able to delete train or bird posts, and if necessary ban users who won't follow the rules. This is all completely biased and has the editorial effect of shaping the forum to a specific niche of speech, there is nothing common carrier about running a focused forum. And politics could indeed enter into it, what if some political group proposes a law banning aircraft or cats? Rallying and organizing against that could include being biased against those who want to support that law. Colorful and strident invective may be featured. Such is life in a free society. If you want a soap box that does something else, the law also protects your ability to make that (or to group up to do it or pay someone else to do it or whatever else). And as a practical matter it is now easier and cheaper to do so and get to a potential global audience then at any time in human history (let alone the history of the US). Win the argument in the marketplace of ideas, not using the state monopoly on violence.
com2kid 4y ago
> ended up making social media accounts require annual payments So, an end to social media companies that are actively hostile to their users? No more psychologically deceptive tactics to force engagement at any cost? No more ad tracking? An end to foreign spam accounts? Looks like quarterly ARPU is about $12 per US user per month. So a $5 a month subscription would destroy their business model. However go back 6 years and $5 a month was what they were bringing in from ads, and Facebook wasn't exactly suffering as a business 6 years ago. In Europe, ARPU is just $6 per month right now, though I'd presume UK is higher, since EU is very diverse in terms of country economies. Of course most people would leave Facebook if it was $5 a month.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Those things won't change, the charge will just be on top. And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. But you can appeal for $200?
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    > And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. But you can appeal for $200? The fact that money is involved would put them under legal scrutiny. It may not actually be a bad deal - the fee can be refunded if the appeal is legitimate (the fee is just to deter spammers) and if they still act maliciously you can take them to small claims court since there's now a defined monetary loss.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    > the charge will just be on top. Disagreed - if ad- and engagement-based social media becomes a regulatory minefield then other monetization models suddenly become attractive. The final price will always only be limited by what the market is actually willing to bear.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      What are the alternatives from a advertiser's perspective though? Put an ad in the paper? TV? Radio? Those just don't have the viewership anymore.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
roody15 4y ago
This is absolutely the intention. Western Governments are looking to control the discourse and are following the footsteps of China. Honestly sad to see the web move in this direction :/
rconti 4y ago
Larger businesses have economies of scale in all things, including regulatory compliance. It's a great reason to be thoughtful when crafting regulations. Although, in this case, as you point out, that may be a feature.
di4na 4y ago
To be fair re Section 230, the interpretation the court have of it is... wildly on the side of the platform. In particular, it allows a company to wiggle out of its TOS if it seems the TOS could be construed at being more stringent than Section 230. There is definitely some change to do to section 230. I do not think it needs a repeal, but i do think it needs some rethinking and probably some more regulation on privacy and safety.
- Nasrudith 4y ago
  Bullcrap. There is nothing to wiggle out of because they don't have any actual obligation. Terms of service are a mutual courtesy and not a legal contract. They cannot have you arrested or fined for posting swears on their Christian Minecraft server but they can ban you.
  - comex 4y ago
    If there’s an “I Agree” button you have to click, it’s a “clickwrap” contract, which courts in the US generally treat as enforceable. [1] If the terms are just linked somewhere, it’s a “browsewrap” contract, which may or may not be enforceable. [2] Other jurisdictions may differ. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap
  - di4na 4y ago
    Right, the problem is the other way around. Like if you are doing something bad to someone else, like impersonating and using that to damage them. Even if the TOS says it is not allowed and the person impersonated come to the court and ask for this to stop, they are not obliged to do anything. At some point, we are going to have to be able to do something about it. At the very least have some ways to handle this kind of problems.

pydry 4y ago

>That would have the immediate effect of removing anonymity from users, and limiting online comments to people with disposable income (who could be profitably sued for insulting politicians). This must be what they meant by "Singapore on Thames" coz it's certainly not about good economic policy or building enough social housing.

llamataboot 4y ago

I don't know about intentions, seems like the intention behind a ton of this stuff is to "protect the children", or "fix a problem" etc etc, but there just isn't enough awareness of possible side effects - not unique to tech legislation - just look at the policy ratchet of "you can always run by being tougher on crime, very hard to run on being not as tough" -- and arguably there is also some interaction with tech companies doing malicious compliance as well which generally means that the original intent of the legislation gets lost and user experience further degrades (cookie popups anyone?) -- I think it's too simplistic to make this a "politicians want to control the discourse" - there's always a bunch of tradeoffs in these things, and arguably the edge cases /are/ the base case (anyone that has done content moderation for a reasonably large community knows that it is very hard to make any sort of blanket rule, even if you have blanket rules)

BurningFrog 4y ago
It's a good mental practice to always be aware that stated intentions and actual reasons are entirely separate things. They do sometimes, mostly by chance, coincide. The advanced level of this is to be aware this applies even to your own actions.
- llamataboot 4y ago
  The super advanced level is to realize it applies to all of your /thoughts/ which is mostly a pattern matching brain and personality built around the ways it found to make sense of some things justifying the chaos in retrospect :D
  - hallway_monitor 4y ago
    Correct but this is a different phenomenon. You are talking about post hoc justification for your behavior, where your brain is very good at making up stories that have nothing to do with the original motivation. I believe GP is referring to the fact that the true aim of much of this legislation had nothing to do with protecting kids from the beginning. They use that rhetoric because it's easy to get people on board and much more difficult to explain the real world implications for security.
    - dcow 4y ago
      I didn’t get that impression. You’re not wrong that something can be justified “for the children” but have an ulterior motive. But I think what’s being argued is that the initial motive is actually honestly for the children and that that goal blinds people to the reality of how bad or pointless or even perversely harmful the proposed solution is.
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
      I think it's a mix of cynical PR campaigns and honest activism, and I'm not smart enough to say which is the biggest factor in each instance. Separately, the honest activists are often lying to themselves, in the sense that their real motives are not what the they tell themselves and others.

Zak 4y ago

> [Preventing public discourse] is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230 What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect?

camdat 4y ago
>algorithms that have an editorial effect? Isnt this every non-chronilogical sorting algorithm?
- kergonath 4y ago
  Even chronologically sorting ones. Any choice made is an editorial choice.
dane-pgp 4y ago
If the goal is to prevent the ambiguous harm of "editorial effect", then I don't think it is fair to remove all platform immunity and punish the platform every time it fails to implement the correct, government-approved "editorial effect" instead of its own. It seems like the proponents of such a rule change are being underhanded, thinking "We can't ban companies from having a political bias, so we'll say that if the company has a political bias (i.e. any editorial/content policy), it becomes liable for any libel, or scams, or threats (written in any language) that appear anywhere on its platform". I might support a narrow form of this, though, which says that if a platform doesn't let you opt out of (legal content) filtering/re-ordering of content, then the platform has profited from you receiving messages with an unwanted bias (i.e. commercial speech), and therefore owes the user a small amount of statutory damages each time the user suffers some harm.
xoa 4y ago
>What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect? You mean, "repeal Section 230"? Because the entire point of Section 230 is to allow imperfect biased moderation without having to eliminate all user content. Such calls are ridiculous, stupid, or malicious on a host of levels. Making editorial decisions about what to allow on your own private property is core 1A Freedom of Speech, with caselaw dating back to well before the web. "Editorial effect" is also an utterly meaningless phrase. You probably have some silly politics thing in mind, but moderating against porn or violence also has an "editorial effect". So does having a forum devoted to aircraft or cats. I think trains and birds are great too. But if I want to run a forum specifically about aircraft or cats, I need to be able to delete train or bird posts, and if necessary ban users who won't follow the rules. This is all completely biased and has the editorial effect of shaping the forum to a specific niche of speech, there is nothing common carrier about running a focused forum. And politics could indeed enter into it, what if some political group proposes a law banning aircraft or cats? Rallying and organizing against that could include being biased against those who want to support that law. Colorful and strident invective may be featured. Such is life in a free society. If you want a soap box that does something else, the law also protects your ability to make that (or to group up to do it or pay someone else to do it or whatever else). And as a practical matter it is now easier and cheaper to do so and get to a potential global audience then at any time in human history (let alone the history of the US). Win the argument in the marketplace of ideas, not using the state monopoly on violence.

com2kid 4y ago

> ended up making social media accounts require annual payments So, an end to social media companies that are actively hostile to their users? No more psychologically deceptive tactics to force engagement at any cost? No more ad tracking? An end to foreign spam accounts? Looks like quarterly ARPU is about $12 per US user per month. So a $5 a month subscription would destroy their business model. However go back 6 years and $5 a month was what they were bringing in from ads, and Facebook wasn't exactly suffering as a business 6 years ago. In Europe, ARPU is just $6 per month right now, though I'd presume UK is higher, since EU is very diverse in terms of country economies. Of course most people would leave Facebook if it was $5 a month.

LatteLazy 4y ago
Those things won't change, the charge will just be on top. And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. But you can appeal for $200?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. But you can appeal for $200? The fact that money is involved would put them under legal scrutiny. It may not actually be a bad deal - the fee can be refunded if the appeal is legitimate (the fee is just to deter spammers) and if they still act maliciously you can take them to small claims court since there's now a defined monetary loss.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  > the charge will just be on top. Disagreed - if ad- and engagement-based social media becomes a regulatory minefield then other monetization models suddenly become attractive. The final price will always only be limited by what the market is actually willing to bear.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    What are the alternatives from a advertiser's perspective though? Put an ad in the paper? TV? Radio? Those just don't have the viewership anymore.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

roody15 4y ago

This is absolutely the intention. Western Governments are looking to control the discourse and are following the footsteps of China. Honestly sad to see the web move in this direction :/

rconti 4y ago

Larger businesses have economies of scale in all things, including regulatory compliance. It's a great reason to be thoughtful when crafting regulations. Although, in this case, as you point out, that may be a feature.

di4na 4y ago

To be fair re Section 230, the interpretation the court have of it is... wildly on the side of the platform. In particular, it allows a company to wiggle out of its TOS if it seems the TOS could be construed at being more stringent than Section 230. There is definitely some change to do to section 230. I do not think it needs a repeal, but i do think it needs some rethinking and probably some more regulation on privacy and safety.

Nasrudith 4y ago
Bullcrap. There is nothing to wiggle out of because they don't have any actual obligation. Terms of service are a mutual courtesy and not a legal contract. They cannot have you arrested or fined for posting swears on their Christian Minecraft server but they can ban you.
- comex 4y ago
  If there’s an “I Agree” button you have to click, it’s a “clickwrap” contract, which courts in the US generally treat as enforceable. [1] If the terms are just linked somewhere, it’s a “browsewrap” contract, which may or may not be enforceable. [2] Other jurisdictions may differ. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap
- di4na 4y ago
  Right, the problem is the other way around. Like if you are doing something bad to someone else, like impersonating and using that to damage them. Even if the TOS says it is not allowed and the person impersonated come to the court and ask for this to stop, they are not obliged to do anything. At some point, we are going to have to be able to do something about it. At the very least have some ways to handle this kind of problems.