3 ms·

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 de

by 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.

by CPLX 4y ago

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.