4 ms·

Alternately we could look at Social Media as a defective product. I think it's a much better metaphor. The product has horrible consequences and side effects. I

by CPLX 4y ago

Alternately we could look at Social Media as a defective product. I think it's a much better metaphor. The product has horrible consequences and side effects. It's a for profit making entity, creating a product that often causes people to get hurt or damaged. Like lawn darts.

phpisthebest 4y ago
Well I enjoyed Lawn Darts and disagree with the prohibition on them so if the desire would be to ban social media I would also disagree with it neither were "defective" products, just because they caused harm does not make them defective, both lawn darts, and social media are working exactly as the manufacturer intended, calling them "defective" is stretching the definition of the term if you want to make the case of regulation one does not need to nor should the term defect be perverted to be used to get around legal productions (like free speech). Cocaine is banned not because it is defective but because it is harmful, though I also disagree with the banning of cocaine generally because I do not believe it is role of government to protect someone from self harm
- CPLX 4y ago
  The difference between the two of them is that due to historical specifics, the social media companies have Section 230, which completely immunizes them from dealing with the consequences of any of their actions. Without that they'd be subject to the same constraints as your average newspaper or TV station. Which is to say not a lot of constraints. But there would in fact be a means to address the consequences of their editorial decisions.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Given the clear editorial choices via moderation that the platforms have chosen to undertake I would be in favor of treating them like a newspaper of TV Station
    - CPLX 4y ago
      Yup. The second you prioritize one piece of content over another by other than an automatic means like chronological order or votes you're not presenting user generated content any more, you're making editorial decisions. The fact that we've tolerated this for so long is appalling.
      - hackyhacky 4y ago
        The overwhelming majority of content on social media is curated by automatic means. Manual curation at that scale, is, as you know, infeasible.
        CPLX 4y ago
        Automatic perhaps, but still editorial in the decision making process. As soon as you start deciding to show some content and not other content based on the content of the communications you're making editorial decisions. Algorithms or not, it's a judgement call.
        hackyhacky 4y ago
        Sure it is. It's also inevitable. Every communications medium makes similar judgement calls, including broadcast television, which chooses which shows to air based on their content, and which news story to cover, based on their content. Given the scale of social media, curation is a necessity.
  - hackyhacky 4y ago
    That's not at all a reasonable characterization of 230. https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/29/everything-you-know-about-section-230-is-wrong-why/ https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/29/everything-you-know-abou... Websites and TV stations have the same first amendment protection. The main difference is that users do not contribute content to TV stations. That's what 230 protects.
    - cronix 4y ago
      There were "public access" shows on cable that showed user generated content. Not so different than the majority of tik-tok content today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G8reRPOoiw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G8reRPOoiw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFBIMKdOdBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFBIMKdOdBg
      - hackyhacky 4y ago
        Actually, very different. Public access was very limited in bandwidth: one simply didn't have thousands of people posting content. As a result, public access was heavily curated and subject to the same broadcast restrictions as traditional television. Even allowing that, public access isn't much of a thing anymore. In modern mainstream television stations, there is absolutely no user-generated content.
- bumby 4y ago
  >just because they caused harm does not make them defective, both lawn darts, and social media are working exactly as the manufacturer intended Then would it possibly be a better distinction to define them instead as poorly designed products with large negative externalities? If I build a product that meets it's stated goal but poisons the environment around it, it's not "defective" in the myopic view, but poorly designed in the global view. Even taking the libertarian line, doesn't the government have a role in regulating negative externalities?
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    That depends on the type and scope of "negative externalities", and not all libertarian philosophies agree on the where to draw that line. Some would say a negative exernality like CO2 emissions would raise to the level for government regulations (violating NAP) , other libertarian philosophies would not, viewing it a totalitarian control as human breath expeals CO2 so if the government can regulate it then there are no limits on government at all. I dont know if I have a good answer
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      >viewing it a totalitarian control as human breath expeals CO2 so if the government can regulate it then there are no limits on government at all. "If the gubmit can tell multinational corps not to pull oil out of the ground, they can make me hold my breath! It produces the same molecule!" Libertarian philosophy in a nutshell.
      - bcrosby95 4y ago
        Your post made me wonder what libertarians think about things like llcs and corporations - the legal shields they provide are a massive government subsidy.
        corrral 4y ago
        Left-libertarians often think they shouldn't be A Thing, since they're extensions of state power and, besides, left-libertarians are more concerned with large concentrations of power per se than whether those concentrations happen to be called governments. Your average common-on-the-Internet right-libertarian usually hand-waves away how they're somehow fine and part of the "natural" (I cannot roll my eyes hard enough, in case you couldn't tell) free market. Some of the softer right-libertarians (bleeding over into folks who'd likely style themselves "classical liberals" rather than libertarians) aren't as hard-line and rigid, so don't really have the dilemma to begin with, but they're much less vocal on the Internet, probably in part because they disagree with the average person a lot less than the former sort does, so it just doesn't come up as much.
kodah 4y ago
Civil courts deal with "defective" products, legislatures deal with harmful products. I had an ATC growing up, so many people died on them they outlawed the design - mainly because it was pretty easy to endo with the wrong tires. Interestingly, we still had one, and it wasn't illegal for me to operate, but you definitely couldn't buy another one legally.

by CPLX 4y ago

phpisthebest 4y ago

Well I enjoyed Lawn Darts and disagree with the prohibition on them so if the desire would be to ban social media I would also disagree with it neither were "defective" products, just because they caused harm does not make them defective, both lawn darts, and social media are working exactly as the manufacturer intended, calling them "defective" is stretching the definition of the term if you want to make the case of regulation one does not need to nor should the term defect be perverted to be used to get around legal productions (like free speech). Cocaine is banned not because it is defective but because it is harmful, though I also disagree with the banning of cocaine generally because I do not believe it is role of government to protect someone from self harm

CPLX 4y ago
The difference between the two of them is that due to historical specifics, the social media companies have Section 230, which completely immunizes them from dealing with the consequences of any of their actions. Without that they'd be subject to the same constraints as your average newspaper or TV station. Which is to say not a lot of constraints. But there would in fact be a means to address the consequences of their editorial decisions.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Given the clear editorial choices via moderation that the platforms have chosen to undertake I would be in favor of treating them like a newspaper of TV Station
  - CPLX 4y ago
    Yup. The second you prioritize one piece of content over another by other than an automatic means like chronological order or votes you're not presenting user generated content any more, you're making editorial decisions. The fact that we've tolerated this for so long is appalling.
    - hackyhacky 4y ago
      The overwhelming majority of content on social media is curated by automatic means. Manual curation at that scale, is, as you know, infeasible.
      - CPLX 4y ago
        Automatic perhaps, but still editorial in the decision making process. As soon as you start deciding to show some content and not other content based on the content of the communications you're making editorial decisions. Algorithms or not, it's a judgement call.
        hackyhacky 4y ago
        Sure it is. It's also inevitable. Every communications medium makes similar judgement calls, including broadcast television, which chooses which shows to air based on their content, and which news story to cover, based on their content. Given the scale of social media, curation is a necessity.
- hackyhacky 4y ago
  That's not at all a reasonable characterization of 230. https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/29/everything-you-know-about-section-230-is-wrong-why/ https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/29/everything-you-know-abou... Websites and TV stations have the same first amendment protection. The main difference is that users do not contribute content to TV stations. That's what 230 protects.
  - cronix 4y ago
    There were "public access" shows on cable that showed user generated content. Not so different than the majority of tik-tok content today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G8reRPOoiw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G8reRPOoiw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFBIMKdOdBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFBIMKdOdBg
    - hackyhacky 4y ago
      Actually, very different. Public access was very limited in bandwidth: one simply didn't have thousands of people posting content. As a result, public access was heavily curated and subject to the same broadcast restrictions as traditional television. Even allowing that, public access isn't much of a thing anymore. In modern mainstream television stations, there is absolutely no user-generated content.
bumby 4y ago
>just because they caused harm does not make them defective, both lawn darts, and social media are working exactly as the manufacturer intended Then would it possibly be a better distinction to define them instead as poorly designed products with large negative externalities? If I build a product that meets it's stated goal but poisons the environment around it, it's not "defective" in the myopic view, but poorly designed in the global view. Even taking the libertarian line, doesn't the government have a role in regulating negative externalities?
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  That depends on the type and scope of "negative externalities", and not all libertarian philosophies agree on the where to draw that line. Some would say a negative exernality like CO2 emissions would raise to the level for government regulations (violating NAP) , other libertarian philosophies would not, viewing it a totalitarian control as human breath expeals CO2 so if the government can regulate it then there are no limits on government at all. I dont know if I have a good answer
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    >viewing it a totalitarian control as human breath expeals CO2 so if the government can regulate it then there are no limits on government at all. "If the gubmit can tell multinational corps not to pull oil out of the ground, they can make me hold my breath! It produces the same molecule!" Libertarian philosophy in a nutshell.
    - bcrosby95 4y ago
      Your post made me wonder what libertarians think about things like llcs and corporations - the legal shields they provide are a massive government subsidy.
      - corrral 4y ago
        Left-libertarians often think they shouldn't be A Thing, since they're extensions of state power and, besides, left-libertarians are more concerned with large concentrations of power per se than whether those concentrations happen to be called governments. Your average common-on-the-Internet right-libertarian usually hand-waves away how they're somehow fine and part of the "natural" (I cannot roll my eyes hard enough, in case you couldn't tell) free market. Some of the softer right-libertarians (bleeding over into folks who'd likely style themselves "classical liberals" rather than libertarians) aren't as hard-line and rigid, so don't really have the dilemma to begin with, but they're much less vocal on the Internet, probably in part because they disagree with the average person a lot less than the former sort does, so it just doesn't come up as much.

kodah 4y ago

Civil courts deal with "defective" products, legislatures deal with harmful products. I had an ATC growing up, so many people died on them they outlawed the design - mainly because it was pretty easy to endo with the wrong tires. Interestingly, we still had one, and it wasn't illegal for me to operate, but you definitely couldn't buy another one legally.