4 ms·
Then let’s change the law. It’s obvious over the past few years that companies can’t be trusted with freedom of association or freedom of speech. Let’s strip
by efitz 3y ago
Then let’s change the law. It’s obvious over the past few years that companies can’t be trusted with freedom of association or freedom of speech. Let’s strip them of both.
If you are incorporated (and therefore benefit from government-provided protection from liability and lower tax rates) then you no longer get to choose your customers; you’re a common carrier and must provide the same service to all customers. You can only terminate a customer for non-payment (if you’re a paid service) or if the customer takes actions that directly threaten your business (eg attempts to hack your service).
Social media companies may no longer promote or suppress content; they can only provide tools to let users do so themselves (eg filter/block/subscribe/tag). Advertisers can use similar filters for ad placement.
- threeseed 3y agoYou need to understand that the majority of people simply don't agree with you. They choose platforms with moderation (aka censorship) and stay away from those that don't.
- flextheruler 3y agoIn the beginning YouTube was popular and had very little moderation. You could watch illegal streams of many films and movies and you could find some porn before it’d be taken down. Advertisers are what demand moderation not users so as to protect their bottom line. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise and ignores a multitude of services that became and still are incredible popular with little moderation.
- anigbrowl 3y ago'Them that has the gold makes the rules'. The users are not the paying customers.
- threeseed 3y ago> ignores a multitude of services that became and still are incredible popular with little moderation Please provide examples. So we can compare them to the likes of Meta, Netflix, Spotify, Apple, Reddit etc.
- GenericPoster 3y ago>YouTube was popular and had very little moderation. Emphasis on the AND. There is some correlation between Youtube's popularity and the lack of moderation but that isn't what made them popular. I do agree on the advertiser's demanding moderation and I honestly don't blame them. If I made a product and I'm paying good money for advertising. I wouldn't want my products to be even remotely associated with anything that might promote controversy AND lower sales. Emphasis on the AND. The companies job is to make money and if that means embracing censorship or decrying it then they'll do it. Hell, they'll even do both at the same time. Advertisers are a leech on society and I hate that I'm defending them. But they pay the bills so.... That doesn't mean that vast majority of users don't want moderation. Every "free-speech" alternative to an already existing platform that I've visited has been complete shit. Filled with nutjobs that couldn't play nice with the normal folk.
- somenameforme 3y agoYou're making the exact same logical fallacy you're pointing out. The reason free speech alternatives tend to be filled with less than desirable types is precisely because they're alternatives. Who are you going to disproportionately attract as early adopters? It's the same reason anti-Musk driven alternatives to Twitter are also failing. Instead of having a normal sampling of society, you end up with a hardcore bias which is offputting to most of everybody except those of that bias. I also think Threads is perhaps a reasonable challenge to the idea that society wants moderation. Unlike the anti-Musk Twitter alternatives it started with a massive and mixed userbase and was a completely viable alternative, yet it almost immediately collapsed. It's really hard to see why without looking to the fact that were also featuring the sort of "moderation" that historically only comes as a bait-and-switch after a platform is extremely well established.
- threeseed 3y agoNo idea what you are talking about with Threads. The reason people stopped using it was because after the initial install they realised it was missing basic features like a web app, search, chronological feed etc. Those have now been added and reports from popular users is that engagement across the board is increasing again. Far from collapsing and well on its way to being a true Twitter alternative.
- MockObject 3y agoThis seems like a generalization with as many counterexamples as examples. Also, users don't actually want censorship, they want a tailored experience that filters out whatever content they don't like.
- globular-toast 3y agoPeople like curation, not censorship. Big difference.
- threeseed 3y agoExcept that curation is censorship.
- nradov 3y agoSupreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested that Congress should extend common carrier legislation to cover social media companies. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...
- rhcom2 3y agoEverything would be overrun by spam. Even 4chan moderates spam and ads.
- MisterBastahrd 3y agoHow about no? You want to show your content on the internet? Start your own hosting service or find one that will allow your content. Nobody owes you anything.
- notamy 3y ago> Social media companies may no longer promote or suppress content; they can only provide tools to let users do so themselves (eg filter/block/subscribe/tag) Users don’t want the responsibility of filtering out CP, gore, sexual violence, etc. I would bet the average user actively wants that content suppressed. Just look at any of the cases of social media moderators developing PTSD from their work.
- corinroyal 3y agoSo if I run a social media site, I would be required by law to carry hate speech, incitement to overthrow the government, rape threats, heretical religious statements, fascist propaganda, and covid conspiracy videos? That's gonna be a no from me. Freedom of speech does not imply a mandate for others to broadcast your speech.