8 ms·
Some people are probably going to call for legislation to address this twitter thread. What kinds of laws or regulations do you think could solve this?
by cwkoss 4y ago
Some people are probably going to call for legislation to address this twitter thread. What kinds of laws or regulations do you think could solve this?
- michaelgrosner2 4y agoNone, because the government shouldn’t be interfering in speech.
- Dig1t 4y agoThe whole point of this is that government is already interfering in speech. This one specifically is pretty strong IMO (Biden team telling Twitter to manipulate speech): https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064 Yes yes, someone has already said something about one of them being a dick pic, remove that one, whatever. But do you think they are ALL dick picks? This email is one out of many.
- michaelgrosner2 4y ago> This one specifically is pretty strong IMO That was from October 2020. Biden was not in government then.
- dbsights 4y agoConspiring to suppress true information to influence an election seems worse.
- code_witch_sam 4y agowhat if you use the report button to do the same, and succeed? have you influenced the election? perhaps marginally. your tweets do the same.
- ThatPlayer 4y agoBut that is still within the company's First Amendment right. This was settled when the Supreme Court ruled that political donations are a company's First Amendment right. So now companies are allowed to have a direct influence on elections.
- michaelgrosner2 4y agoStep back and think how your position is anti-free speech
- dbsights 4y agoI'm in favour of free speech, without censorship from government or private entities. Which is why I think censoring the laptop story was wrong. So tell me, how is that anti free speech?
- RavingGoat 4y agoHow are non-consensual dick pics free speech?
- sanderjd 4y agoThe point being made by the commenter you replied to, which I think you missed, is that if the government passed a law preventing one private entity (a political campaign) from emailing another private entity (a business), that would be government interference in speech.
- tomrod 4y ago> The whole point of this is that government is already interfering in speech. Nah. The point of this is right-wing propaganda.
- ffggffggj 4y agoAny laws “solving” this would actually be first amendment violations.
- ecommerceguy 4y agoTerm limits!
- dotnet00 4y agoHopefully ones requiring this kind of transparency regarding moderation actions on platforms of sufficiently large size. A lot of concerns about bias would go away if platforms had to give proper reasoning/justification for moderation actions in more definite terms than the vague statements we're used to. It might be a bit much to expect that for every moderation action, so maybe something that balances the required detail against the visibility of the action. For example, banning spambots should basically only need overall statistics on the bans, whereas bans/suspensions of news or public figures should require detailed insight into what happened. As a side effect it might force platforms to have some insight into automated bans instead of relying on people managing to stir up enough of a ruckus on another platform to get in touch with a human.
- tbrownaw 4y agoWell, the one party wants to require more censorship, which would be bad (and unconstitutional here in the US), and the other party wants to ban censorship, which would also be bad (and unconstitutional here in the US). Maybe something about transparency would be workable? Even if the policy that whichever site is being transparent about is "all decisions are arbitrary", at least people would know that that's the policy.
- dehrmann 4y agoNo, each party wants things they disagree with censored.
- steve76 4y ago