4 ms·

I don't see how "the money still comes in" if tech companies shrug and disable moderation. Most advertisers are not going to want their brands on an unmoderated

I don't see how "the money still comes in" if tech companies shrug and disable moderation. Most advertisers are not going to want their brands on an unmoderated platform where their ads can be shown next to ISIS propaganda, neo-nazi propaganda, or pornography.

ElfinTrousers 4y ago
I sincerely wish that I agreed with you. Not trying to be funny when I say that.
- jfengel 4y ago
  In addition to the advertisers, there can also be an outflow of users. Most users don't actually like unmoderated forums: they rapidly fill with the most unpleasant and obnoxious voices. Users fleeing will also reduce the rates that advertisers are willing to pay. Especially if "disable moderation" also means turning off spam filters -- and I'm certain that spammers will try to use this ruling to force that.
welshwelsh 4y ago
They won't care if all platforms are unmoderated. What are they going to do, stop advertising?
- lesuorac 4y ago
  Why would they stop advertising if one location where they advertised was undesirable? Brand Advertisements would just disappear from the internet and stick to the highly regulated TV slots but Mtn Dew isn't going to layoff its whole advertising team just because X Webpage has Pro-Nazi comments.
- allturtles 4y ago
  They would presumably shift advertising dollars to channels that don't constitute 'social media' under this law: TV, ecommerce sites, search, news sites, etc.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  Aside form that, I can imagine that a completely unmoderated internet would look like the zombie apocalypse where the zombies are fast and smart. If you can't moderate a forum, then you can't ban people for posting animal porn on r/funny or nudes on facebook or youtube or take their posts down. It would be a wild west for trolls, and finding a section of the internet where you could have rational and civil conversations like this would be like finding a cave where as long as you don't make too much noise the zombies won't hear you and come running.
yucky 4y ago
Advertising platforms like Google and FB already have specific exclusion options to avoid running your ads on "objectionable" pages (violence, adult, etc.) so those would just get lumped in there. That technology has existed for at least a decade and anybody who has ever run ad campaigns is familiar with how they work.
- allturtles 4y ago
  Using that technology to mark a post as 'objectionable' could be construed as illegal censorship under this law [0]: > A social media platform may not censor a user, a user ’s expression, or a user ’s ability to receive the expression of another person based on: (1) the viewpoint of the user or another person; (2) the viewpoint represented in the user ’s expression or another person ’s expression; or (3) a user ’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state. > "Censor" means to block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression. [0]: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=872&Bill=HB20 https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=872&B...
  - yucky 4y ago
    It doesn't demonetize, it gives the advertisers control over their target audience on a per campaign basis. So depending on what I'm advertising I may or may not want to exclude different types of content from displaying my advertising. We don't consider it censorship if I want to market to people only in Iowa. It doesn't mean I'm demonetizing people who have content for and about Nebraska. I can also choose not to run my ads on certain apps or websites on a one-off basis.
    - allturtles 4y ago
      The law is very open-ended, it includes anything that would "otherwise discriminate against expression," and I could certainly see a judge concluding that tagging a post as 'objectionable' (which is done by the platform, not the advertiser) counts as such discrimination.

ElfinTrousers 4y ago

I sincerely wish that I agreed with you. Not trying to be funny when I say that.

jfengel 4y ago
In addition to the advertisers, there can also be an outflow of users. Most users don't actually like unmoderated forums: they rapidly fill with the most unpleasant and obnoxious voices. Users fleeing will also reduce the rates that advertisers are willing to pay. Especially if "disable moderation" also means turning off spam filters -- and I'm certain that spammers will try to use this ruling to force that.

welshwelsh 4y ago

They won't care if all platforms are unmoderated. What are they going to do, stop advertising?

lesuorac 4y ago
Why would they stop advertising if one location where they advertised was undesirable? Brand Advertisements would just disappear from the internet and stick to the highly regulated TV slots but Mtn Dew isn't going to layoff its whole advertising team just because X Webpage has Pro-Nazi comments.
allturtles 4y ago
They would presumably shift advertising dollars to channels that don't constitute 'social media' under this law: TV, ecommerce sites, search, news sites, etc.
BizarroLand 4y ago
Aside form that, I can imagine that a completely unmoderated internet would look like the zombie apocalypse where the zombies are fast and smart. If you can't moderate a forum, then you can't ban people for posting animal porn on r/funny or nudes on facebook or youtube or take their posts down. It would be a wild west for trolls, and finding a section of the internet where you could have rational and civil conversations like this would be like finding a cave where as long as you don't make too much noise the zombies won't hear you and come running.

yucky 4y ago

Advertising platforms like Google and FB already have specific exclusion options to avoid running your ads on "objectionable" pages (violence, adult, etc.) so those would just get lumped in there. That technology has existed for at least a decade and anybody who has ever run ad campaigns is familiar with how they work.

allturtles 4y ago
Using that technology to mark a post as 'objectionable' could be construed as illegal censorship under this law [0]: > A social media platform may not censor a user, a user ’s expression, or a user ’s ability to receive the expression of another person based on: (1) the viewpoint of the user or another person; (2) the viewpoint represented in the user ’s expression or another person ’s expression; or (3) a user ’s geographic location in this state or any part of this state. > "Censor" means to block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression. [0]: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=872&Bill=HB20 https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=872&B...
- yucky 4y ago
  It doesn't demonetize, it gives the advertisers control over their target audience on a per campaign basis. So depending on what I'm advertising I may or may not want to exclude different types of content from displaying my advertising. We don't consider it censorship if I want to market to people only in Iowa. It doesn't mean I'm demonetizing people who have content for and about Nebraska. I can also choose not to run my ads on certain apps or websites on a one-off basis.
  - allturtles 4y ago
    The law is very open-ended, it includes anything that would "otherwise discriminate against expression," and I could certainly see a judge concluding that tagging a post as 'objectionable' (which is done by the platform, not the advertiser) counts as such discrimination.