4 ms·

Who do you think should make the content decisions for these platforms?

azemetre 2y ago
I think removing section 230 protections from these companies would be sufficient enough. You can’t have it both ways on being an editor of content (the algorithms) then claim you aren’t a publisher.
- GauntletWizard 2y ago
  Would you also remove section 230 protections from every forum with a spam filter? How about human moderators (like this one)?
  - azemetre 2y ago
    Obviously not, I should have been more specific but I’m obviously referring to the large corporate internet gatekeepers (Google, Meta, Twitter, TikTok, Amazon, etc).
- seoulmetro 2y ago
  But the government likes this, as it lets them push censorship under the guise of eliminating "hate speech", "misinformation", "fake news". They've also tricked people into thinking they need it to filter out the former things. They don't, and are actively harmed by the censorship.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    YouTube, Facebook, Instragram, etc are already doing this. Also what's nice about the government is that they are compromised of citizens where we can vote in new people to lobby the changes we want. How can I do this at Google or Meta? That's something only the privileged can afford.
    - seoulmetro 2y ago
      Yeah you would be blown away if you ever discovered what they censor on those platforms. They turn the filter to 11. You can't even swear on YouTube anymore.
- amf12 2y ago
  Do you know what would happen after that? Every company, blog, etc would ban more and more content.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    That's fine, it'll allow more competition from those that are actually not publishing their content versus those that are doing both publishing and editorializing. I should have clarified and specified that I was only referring to these trillion dollar multi-national corporations that can obviously afford to regulate their platforms themselves. Regulations can be targeted you know, they don't have to be full-stop.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  I have to ask: why do people think removing §230 will make (in their views) overly censorious social media platforms less censorious? The entire point of §230 is to make them immune to the liabilities of failing to moderate; in a world where, say, failing to take down a defamatory video makes the entire platform liable for defamation, the only logical course of action is to essentially take down everything somebody might find offensive. And if you're already incensed by how ready platforms are to do that today, that alternative reality would surely be far worse.
  - f33d5173 2y ago
    It bifurcates platforms in two: those with no moderation, and those that have detailed human review for every video. A site like youtube is largely unworkable under the latter model, but is more workable under the former model. Either youtube would adopt such a model, or they would pivot to being essentially netflix with all licensed content. In the latter case another site would spring up or an existing site would become popular for people without an existing following to post videos, which would necessarily use a moderationless model.
    - AlienRobot 2y ago
      >It bifurcates platforms in two It won't. If Youtube had no moderation, it would have no ad revenue. This would effectively kill every single website where users can publish content without having to go through a publishing contract first. Youtube, Medium, Newsgrounds, every single comments section on news articles, all web forums, Discord, reviews on Amazon, Steam. I'm not even sure websites like buy me a coffee and patreon would be able to survive, because if they can't moderate their posts, that doesn't mean mastercard can't ban them, as mastercard isn't subject to publishing laws.
      - f33d5173 2y ago
        Mastercard et al are able to act as censors of the internet because websites have discretionary moderation policies. If, when mastercard demanded policy changes, websites could only respond with "sorry, it's out of our hands", then mastercard would give it up pretty quick. If they didn't, then bitcoin would become temporarily quite popular until they did. People want to be able to pay for things online, and credit cards are able to boss websites around only insofar as they don't push the envelope too far.
- AlienRobot 2y ago
  Youtube doesn't edit content. When Spez changes what a commenter says, that's editing content. Banning content isn't editing it.

I think removing section 230 protections from these companies would be sufficient enough. You can’t have it both ways on being an editor of content (the algorithms) then claim you aren’t a publisher.

GauntletWizard 2y ago
Would you also remove section 230 protections from every forum with a spam filter? How about human moderators (like this one)?
- azemetre 2y ago
  Obviously not, I should have been more specific but I’m obviously referring to the large corporate internet gatekeepers (Google, Meta, Twitter, TikTok, Amazon, etc).
seoulmetro 2y ago
But the government likes this, as it lets them push censorship under the guise of eliminating "hate speech", "misinformation", "fake news". They've also tricked people into thinking they need it to filter out the former things. They don't, and are actively harmed by the censorship.
- azemetre 2y ago
  YouTube, Facebook, Instragram, etc are already doing this. Also what's nice about the government is that they are compromised of citizens where we can vote in new people to lobby the changes we want. How can I do this at Google or Meta? That's something only the privileged can afford.
  - seoulmetro 2y ago
    Yeah you would be blown away if you ever discovered what they censor on those platforms. They turn the filter to 11. You can't even swear on YouTube anymore.
amf12 2y ago
Do you know what would happen after that? Every company, blog, etc would ban more and more content.
- azemetre 2y ago
  That's fine, it'll allow more competition from those that are actually not publishing their content versus those that are doing both publishing and editorializing. I should have clarified and specified that I was only referring to these trillion dollar multi-national corporations that can obviously afford to regulate their platforms themselves. Regulations can be targeted you know, they don't have to be full-stop.
jcranmer 2y ago
I have to ask: why do people think removing §230 will make (in their views) overly censorious social media platforms less censorious? The entire point of §230 is to make them immune to the liabilities of failing to moderate; in a world where, say, failing to take down a defamatory video makes the entire platform liable for defamation, the only logical course of action is to essentially take down everything somebody might find offensive. And if you're already incensed by how ready platforms are to do that today, that alternative reality would surely be far worse.
- f33d5173 2y ago
  It bifurcates platforms in two: those with no moderation, and those that have detailed human review for every video. A site like youtube is largely unworkable under the latter model, but is more workable under the former model. Either youtube would adopt such a model, or they would pivot to being essentially netflix with all licensed content. In the latter case another site would spring up or an existing site would become popular for people without an existing following to post videos, which would necessarily use a moderationless model.
  - AlienRobot 2y ago
    >It bifurcates platforms in two It won't. If Youtube had no moderation, it would have no ad revenue. This would effectively kill every single website where users can publish content without having to go through a publishing contract first. Youtube, Medium, Newsgrounds, every single comments section on news articles, all web forums, Discord, reviews on Amazon, Steam. I'm not even sure websites like buy me a coffee and patreon would be able to survive, because if they can't moderate their posts, that doesn't mean mastercard can't ban them, as mastercard isn't subject to publishing laws.
    - f33d5173 2y ago
      Mastercard et al are able to act as censors of the internet because websites have discretionary moderation policies. If, when mastercard demanded policy changes, websites could only respond with "sorry, it's out of our hands", then mastercard would give it up pretty quick. If they didn't, then bitcoin would become temporarily quite popular until they did. People want to be able to pay for things online, and credit cards are able to boss websites around only insofar as they don't push the envelope too far.
AlienRobot 2y ago
Youtube doesn't edit content. When Spez changes what a commenter says, that's editing content. Banning content isn't editing it.