4 ms·

This is why we need regulation surrounding these things. It's a balancing act between individual and social rights (individual in this case being twitter), but

This is why we need regulation surrounding these things. It's a balancing act between individual and social rights (individual in this case being twitter), but these companies very explicitly build to scale to be a sort of "town hall" and in doing so start having very large social influence the likes of which no one in history has ever had. When they get to this scale there has to be extra responsibility here for the good of society as a whole.

smoldesu 4y ago
Well, yes and no. Yes, we need regulation if we want to hold people accountable for what they say online. No, in the sense that discriminating between large and small services is a bad idea. Scale has nothing to do with it, smaller services don't deserve to get off scott-free just because they didn't hit 'Twitter-scale' yet. Again, the biggest issue here is the public misconception that Twitter (or any of the internet) is a benevolent platform. Legislation cannot change that.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Small platforms need to be held to a different standard. If you are the global village square platform worth 44 billion you get different rules compared to a wordpress blog with no traffic where you can make comments. Scale matters.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    At least in America, that's not really how Rule of Law works. At least WRT individual rights like Free Speech.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      That's a tautology, my original comment was pointing out that the law needs to be updated. Pointing out that the current law isn't like that is not interesting.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Rule of Law is simply the principle that we cannot apply legal concepts discriminately: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/overview-rule-law https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a... Nobody is above the law, not the meek nor the mighty.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        Someone should go tell that to existing utility companies so they can argue they can't be more highly regulated than other companies. aka, we already have precedence for this sort of thing.
        chc 4y ago
        This is an idiosyncratic understanding of "rule of law." Laws in America routinely discriminate between small and large entities. For example, the FMLA only applies to companies with 50 or more employees.
spritefs 4y ago
> but these companies very explicitly build to scale to be a sort of "town hall" and in doing so start having very large social influence the likes of which no one in history has ever had. I think a bazaar or carnival is a better metaphor, since a town hall is a brick and mortar thing that lasts into posterity, whereas a social network is more temporary > When they get to this scale there has to be extra responsibility here for the good of society as a whole. Or people could just not use the service and move onto a different one? There's nothing permanent about the current social networks that are popular right now
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  > Or people could just not use the service and move onto a different one? And people can just move to a different town, that doesn't stop us from having laws in place to guarantee rights in the current town.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    You don't live in a town, though. You live in a privately owned-and-operated digital Olive Garden, which Elon Musk bought and made Confederate Flags mandatory or whatever. The town already decided that's okay a few hundred years ago, and reversing that stance would require pushing out all the restaurants people know and love.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      you can beat any analogy to death, it doesn't mean you should.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Twitter is not analogous with a town, though. That's the thesis of my original comment, and I'm using your metaphor to explain how Twitter is not a public asset.
        4y ago

smoldesu 4y ago

Well, yes and no. Yes, we need regulation if we want to hold people accountable for what they say online. No, in the sense that discriminating between large and small services is a bad idea. Scale has nothing to do with it, smaller services don't deserve to get off scott-free just because they didn't hit 'Twitter-scale' yet. Again, the biggest issue here is the public misconception that Twitter (or any of the internet) is a benevolent platform. Legislation cannot change that.

ipaddr 4y ago
Small platforms need to be held to a different standard. If you are the global village square platform worth 44 billion you get different rules compared to a wordpress blog with no traffic where you can make comments. Scale matters.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  At least in America, that's not really how Rule of Law works. At least WRT individual rights like Free Speech.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    That's a tautology, my original comment was pointing out that the law needs to be updated. Pointing out that the current law isn't like that is not interesting.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Rule of Law is simply the principle that we cannot apply legal concepts discriminately: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/overview-rule-law https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a... Nobody is above the law, not the meek nor the mighty.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        Someone should go tell that to existing utility companies so they can argue they can't be more highly regulated than other companies. aka, we already have precedence for this sort of thing.
      - chc 4y ago
        This is an idiosyncratic understanding of "rule of law." Laws in America routinely discriminate between small and large entities. For example, the FMLA only applies to companies with 50 or more employees.

spritefs 4y ago

> but these companies very explicitly build to scale to be a sort of "town hall" and in doing so start having very large social influence the likes of which no one in history has ever had. I think a bazaar or carnival is a better metaphor, since a town hall is a brick and mortar thing that lasts into posterity, whereas a social network is more temporary > When they get to this scale there has to be extra responsibility here for the good of society as a whole. Or people could just not use the service and move onto a different one? There's nothing permanent about the current social networks that are popular right now

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
> Or people could just not use the service and move onto a different one? And people can just move to a different town, that doesn't stop us from having laws in place to guarantee rights in the current town.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  You don't live in a town, though. You live in a privately owned-and-operated digital Olive Garden, which Elon Musk bought and made Confederate Flags mandatory or whatever. The town already decided that's okay a few hundred years ago, and reversing that stance would require pushing out all the restaurants people know and love.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    you can beat any analogy to death, it doesn't mean you should.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Twitter is not analogous with a town, though. That's the thesis of my original comment, and I'm using your metaphor to explain how Twitter is not a public asset.
      - 4y ago