4 ms·

>The only option is to pursue freedom of speech because any method to define what is acceptable and not will be manipulated by those who can. Sorta like 4chan?

>The only option is to pursue freedom of speech because any method to define what is acceptable and not will be manipulated by those who can. Sorta like 4chan? I wonder why it’s not popular… The reality of the internet is you need to moderate.

mc32 3y ago
The question is about the government getting to say what should and should not be moderated beyond what is already illegal.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Anybody, including the government, should be allowed to contact a publisher, point to something it is publishing on its site, and ask, “Hey, do you think that might violate your terms or editorial standards?” and leave the ultimate decision to the publisher. My understanding is that this is all that happened with Twitter.
  - cgriswald 3y ago
    I agree that is the ideal situation but I don’t know that it’s a good way to do things. It is significantly more likely the answer will be “Yes, we should remove that” regardless of whether it violates their editorial standards if the question comes from power, even if no threat is implied or intended and the wording is exactly the same.
  - mc32 3y ago
    The public, yes. The government? No. They ought allow any positive and negative or neutral speech about them or their policies or policies they are responsible for or contemplating. And definitely not if it has anty8ng to do with elections and interfering with elections of their own, or others'.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      So if someone posts that age-old hoax/troll claiming “Remember! Election Day for Party X is one day later!” The government should not be able to warn the social media company about election hoaxes they are hosting?
      - mc32 3y ago
        What? Maybe if people can be fooled so easily they ought not be voting in consequential elections. But, no the Govt should not be getting into regulating speech. Platforms should adopt things like community notes ala X to counter hoaxes and other nonsense on platforms, but not the gov. lest we slide into the situations they've got in Turkey and Russia, Egypt, etc, for example where everything is ostensibly to counter misinformation but in actuality results in control of political speech by the party in power.
      - cgriswald 3y ago
        The risk is that a D would be very concerned with a D-related hoax, but not at all concerned with an R-related hoax or vice versa. By selectively notifying social media companies they could then influence elections. Given the numerous other options already available to the government through its official powers, I also don’t see that as being at all necessary to resolve the problem. So, on that question, no. It seems to be all risk and no reward.

mc32 3y ago

The question is about the government getting to say what should and should not be moderated beyond what is already illegal.

ryandrake 3y ago
Anybody, including the government, should be allowed to contact a publisher, point to something it is publishing on its site, and ask, “Hey, do you think that might violate your terms or editorial standards?” and leave the ultimate decision to the publisher. My understanding is that this is all that happened with Twitter.
- cgriswald 3y ago
  I agree that is the ideal situation but I don’t know that it’s a good way to do things. It is significantly more likely the answer will be “Yes, we should remove that” regardless of whether it violates their editorial standards if the question comes from power, even if no threat is implied or intended and the wording is exactly the same.
- mc32 3y ago
  The public, yes. The government? No. They ought allow any positive and negative or neutral speech about them or their policies or policies they are responsible for or contemplating. And definitely not if it has anty8ng to do with elections and interfering with elections of their own, or others'.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    So if someone posts that age-old hoax/troll claiming “Remember! Election Day for Party X is one day later!” The government should not be able to warn the social media company about election hoaxes they are hosting?
    - mc32 3y ago
      What? Maybe if people can be fooled so easily they ought not be voting in consequential elections. But, no the Govt should not be getting into regulating speech. Platforms should adopt things like community notes ala X to counter hoaxes and other nonsense on platforms, but not the gov. lest we slide into the situations they've got in Turkey and Russia, Egypt, etc, for example where everything is ostensibly to counter misinformation but in actuality results in control of political speech by the party in power.
    - cgriswald 3y ago
      The risk is that a D would be very concerned with a D-related hoax, but not at all concerned with an R-related hoax or vice versa. By selectively notifying social media companies they could then influence elections. Given the numerous other options already available to the government through its official powers, I also don’t see that as being at all necessary to resolve the problem. So, on that question, no. It seems to be all risk and no reward.