4 ms·

> I believe the world would be a better place if web properties took more responsibility of what happens on their premises. The internet would skew back to smal

> I believe the world would be a better place if web properties took more responsibility of what happens on their premises. The internet would skew back to smaller web properties, and a centralized media giant would not be able to close anyone down because they don't like them. It seems more likely to me that increased legal liability on content hosting platforms would have exactly the opposite effect. Smaller platforms aren't going to have the resources or desire to deal with the legal headache of endless lawsuits because someone didn't like what one of their posters had to say, so they're either not going to operate at all or ban everything even remotely offensive to avoid legal problems. And the larger platforms you're concerned about would have even more power, since only they can afford to play the legal liability game, and even more incentive to ban controversial speech to mitigate those legal concerns.

deepsun 4y ago
Smaller platforms would be more picky on who to invite. If they have power to ban users, they have responsibility to keep it clean.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Which means they don't grow at all typically. Really in the end that would push users to completely unmoderated forums, likely designed with protocols that are hard to block. The amount of bad actors and bad information would increase even further. And, these small sites you're talking about are apt to be overly responsible because of the potential risk. "Oh no you said the word bullet" BANGO BONGO, you got the BAN YO. But hey, most authoritarians would love it. They'll get a little bit of cash together and sue sites that talk about LGBT issues, or suicide prevention and say the content on those sites is terroristic in some way, further repressing speech.
  - deepsun 4y ago
    > they don't grow at all typically. Yep, as I said, internet would skew to a smaller web properties, and that's a good thing. > push users to completely unmoderated forums There's a counterexample -- Hacker News. Moderators here do a much better job at keeping it clean and focused on their intended audience than any of the big media. I'd be happy to see more of such focused forums than few huge "one-size-fits-all" platforms.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      I personally don't think it would. My guess is somewhere outside the US would host instead.
      - deepsun 4y ago
        A lot of illegal content is hosted outside the US naturally. But they would not be able to do business in the US (financial transactions with advertisers/data brokers), that's right.
collaborative 4y ago
There is a third way: sell property as a service Sell the ability to host privately available content, even social media. The content is not public, it is invite-only, and is e2e encrypted. This way, the poster is still liable, and the service provider still makes a buck. Just can't use algorithms so the provider can't use virality. It's something similar to what I have done at 6groups.com

deepsun 4y ago

Smaller platforms would be more picky on who to invite. If they have power to ban users, they have responsibility to keep it clean.

pixl97 4y ago
Which means they don't grow at all typically. Really in the end that would push users to completely unmoderated forums, likely designed with protocols that are hard to block. The amount of bad actors and bad information would increase even further. And, these small sites you're talking about are apt to be overly responsible because of the potential risk. "Oh no you said the word bullet" BANGO BONGO, you got the BAN YO. But hey, most authoritarians would love it. They'll get a little bit of cash together and sue sites that talk about LGBT issues, or suicide prevention and say the content on those sites is terroristic in some way, further repressing speech.
- deepsun 4y ago
  > they don't grow at all typically. Yep, as I said, internet would skew to a smaller web properties, and that's a good thing. > push users to completely unmoderated forums There's a counterexample -- Hacker News. Moderators here do a much better job at keeping it clean and focused on their intended audience than any of the big media. I'd be happy to see more of such focused forums than few huge "one-size-fits-all" platforms.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    I personally don't think it would. My guess is somewhere outside the US would host instead.
    - deepsun 4y ago
      A lot of illegal content is hosted outside the US naturally. But they would not be able to do business in the US (financial transactions with advertisers/data brokers), that's right.

collaborative 4y ago

There is a third way: sell property as a service Sell the ability to host privately available content, even social media. The content is not public, it is invite-only, and is e2e encrypted. This way, the poster is still liable, and the service provider still makes a buck. Just can't use algorithms so the provider can't use virality. It's something similar to what I have done at 6groups.com