5 ms·

It all comes down to the relationship between social media and freedom of expression. If we view social media as simply a private service, then these companies

It all comes down to the relationship between social media and freedom of expression. If we view social media as simply a private service, then these companies have the right to do whatever they want. Businesses have the right to refuse service for any reason. But if we view social media as a utility similar to telephones, then free expression should be protected. People can say whatever they want over phone and text. I lean towards the latter. Social media has become the new public square/agora/forum. Yes, its still owned by private enterprise, but it's basically the new town hall at this point.

brightball 2y ago
Definition of Fascism... > A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. https://www.wordnik.com/words/fascism https://www.wordnik.com/words/fascism When the government is colluding with private industry to suppress opposing views on social media, you really have to wonder if the word "violent" is even needed in this definition anymore.
- Jerrrrry 2y ago
  [flagged]
- dmix 2y ago
  It's the definition of a mixed economy (mixing socialism and capitalism), aka the basis of modern liberalism: an slowly but always expanding top down control of the market, while the rest of the market is generally free.
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
I do, as well, but I don't think that the companies that run Social media should be let off the hook (which they say they should). Utilities are regulated monopolies. In exchange for a monopoly status, they need to abide by some pretty strict standards (like regulated pricing and service maintenance), and are forced to work with entities that they would normally avoid. Things like open APIs, algorithm access (that could be classified, but should be accessible to folks that are accountable to the consumers, etc.). Not a simple structure. What we have now, is pretty haphazard, and has grown organically. The current utility/public infrastructure setup is the result of hundreds of years of disasters, ripoffs, successes, and learning. Not sure if we have to go through it all again, or if there is a possibility of taking learning from current municipal structure, and apply it here.
- SSJPython 2y ago
  Yes, I agree with that. But to play Devil's advocate, wouldn't that make social media more prone to government overreach and potential restrictions?
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    Depends. Someone needs to be held Accountable. It would reflect the government. If the government sucks, then social media is probably only one of many things that could be corrupted. It's a lot more likely that corrupting the legal system would be more destructive.
shadowgovt 2y ago
I honestly think the worst thing we could do to social media is treat it like the telephone service. Have people used telephones recently? The network is so infiltrated by scam artists (and the tooling to remove them from the network is so toothless) that it's functionally one giant attack vector against the most vulnerable telephone users these days. The fact that Google is trumpeting adding AI to a phone to detect when you are getting scammed is indicative of how badly the network has been poisoned by the lack of anyone's ability to regulate access. We already know what an unfettered free-expression network looks like. It looks like telephone and email. It's a scammer's playground.
- corinroyal 2y ago
  Yes. This is exactly the argument the EFF makes. Utility-style regulation involves the government picking winners who become unresponsive monopolies. Notice how OpenAI is eager to be regulated. They know that means they win. That's the opposite of what we need the FAANGS et al. to become. And personally, I don't want the government telling me how to moderate my network. The EFF recommendation is anti-trust enforcement to insure these services don't hold American communications hostage. We must attack their moats to enable smaller competitors to have at more level playing field.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    The problem is social media is inherently anti competitive. It relies on network effects, so you have to either limit their size or use utility style regulation.
zo1 2y ago
I don't see how any of this is difficult. Ban illegal content, period. Not that that's hard, it already is. And leave the rest alone. Gore/graphic content -> filter with a toggle for those that want to view it. Bullying -> does it cross the line into an actual law being broken, if so, then ban it. Makes sensitive people nervous, uncomfortable and angry -> leave it be, but if you really wanna go far stick a sentiment analysis thingie on it and allow people to selectively filter it below their own threshold. There is so much that can be done simply, without breaching anyone's freedoms and without teetering into Orwellian 1984 conspiracy territory about wide-scale mind control and opinion shifting. The problem comes when people naturally express themselves, it makes <insert group here> uncomfortable and it inconveniently bubbles up the rankings. E.g. I bet you right now that 20% of the entire american internet population simply doesn't like Biden and would mock him for his, probably innocent, old-age antics. But if that opinion were to "manifest" into some sort of catchy "Biden is old and sucks" hashtag or meme that needs reporting, well that's uncomfortable for TPTB, or the elites, or the media or whatever you wanna call it, and must be stopped. The internet is the ultimate direct-democracy tool we have right now, and it's being manipulated precisely because it breaks "representative" democracy. Another uncomfortable topic: trans people in sports. It will absolutely blow up in one direction if people were organically allowed to organize and find others with similar viewpoints. Instead, they're banned, scared into shutting up, shadow-banned, or worse cancelled and doxxed.
- dangus 2y ago
  Why under your specifications am I not free to start a social media network of my own that has its own rules? Why can’t I start my own social media website about cars where any topics that aren’t related to car culture and discussion are not allowed? Your line is illegality, but my line as the owner of the social media network might be something else. Is private ownership banned now?
  - zo1 2y ago
    I'm all for private ownership as I'm an Libertarian/AnCap. But long story short, we have a flawed world right now, and to make it better right now, we have to work within it and that means making a completely arbitrary line. One that optimizes freedom whilst balancing the abuse, because it's clear to everyone not drinking the koolaid that social media is being used to affect public opinion. We've crossed the boundary of pure private ownership of anything many years ago. Heck, I don't even have private ownership of my own body, so a say in a highly influential component of our society is a small price to pay to keep the evil at bay.
zer00eyz 2y ago
>> but it's basically the new town hall at this point. ... then free expression should be protected. IF its the "new town hall" then were gonna have a fuck ton of rules. You're not "Free" to scream fire in a crowded building, you cant make up crisis actors and expect NOT to get sued to death.... The protection of freedom of expression exists. No one is stoping you from hosting your own platform based on what ever nonsense you make up. I dont have to give you a box to stand on, no one does. Thats not how it ever worked.
- kornhole 2y ago
  We already have setup NOSTR and the fediverse that interoperate with each other. Many of us have set very simple rules to comply with the first amendment and legal precedent around it which is say anything as long as it is not illegal such as directing imminent harm on someone.
- jlawson 2y ago
  >No one is stoping you from hosting your own platform based on what ever nonsense you make up. They actually are. CloudFlare will block you, Visa will refuse payments, Google will delist you, Apple app store will delist your app, and you'll be subject to endless legal harassment from activists if your site allows people to communicate substantially out of line with the San Francisco progressive bloc.
dangus 2y ago
I think where we have to be careful with going toward the latter idea is that not all social media platforms are general purpose, and that free expression includes a lot of unwanted content (spam, scams, off-topic posts, etc). Free expression isn’t something that can be realistically protected when a social media platform has an explicit purpose, code of conduct, and/or ideals. For example, an LGBTQ social media network has to be able to ban anti-LGBTQ content and users. Hacker News needs to be able to remove non-tech industry-related off-topic posts. /r/pcgaming needs to be able to remove posts about mobile gaming. Spam and unwanted self-promotion is often removed by moderators of social media outlets. Moderation is key to a workable social media experience. There’s also a lot of 100% legal free expression that platforms have to be able to choose not to host. Pornography is an common example. The thing that makes this topic difficult is that social media isn’t really pure person-to-person speech (e.g. like a person on soapbox) and it also isn’t really pure curated media (e.g. a television channel or news website published by an editor). It’s like a hybrid of the concepts.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
Private enterprise is bounded by considerations of the common good. So it is reasonable to regulate private enterprise when it becomes an essential service or utility, or has a huge impact on the common good.
scoofy 2y ago
4chan exists. It's really the online "free speech zone" some people seem to be pining for. I've moderated some large subreddits in the past, and am a strong free speech supporter, but I'm also actually perfectly happy not dealing with people spamming the n-word in every forum they can find because they're legally entitled to. "Congress shall make no law" really does mean congress. Unlike telephones, if the forums are open to the public, then so some decorum is needed.

brightball 2y ago

Definition of Fascism... > A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. https://www.wordnik.com/words/fascism https://www.wordnik.com/words/fascism When the government is colluding with private industry to suppress opposing views on social media, you really have to wonder if the word "violent" is even needed in this definition anymore.

Jerrrrry 2y ago
[flagged]
dmix 2y ago
It's the definition of a mixed economy (mixing socialism and capitalism), aka the basis of modern liberalism: an slowly but always expanding top down control of the market, while the rest of the market is generally free.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

I do, as well, but I don't think that the companies that run Social media should be let off the hook (which they say they should). Utilities are regulated monopolies. In exchange for a monopoly status, they need to abide by some pretty strict standards (like regulated pricing and service maintenance), and are forced to work with entities that they would normally avoid. Things like open APIs, algorithm access (that could be classified, but should be accessible to folks that are accountable to the consumers, etc.). Not a simple structure. What we have now, is pretty haphazard, and has grown organically. The current utility/public infrastructure setup is the result of hundreds of years of disasters, ripoffs, successes, and learning. Not sure if we have to go through it all again, or if there is a possibility of taking learning from current municipal structure, and apply it here.

SSJPython 2y ago
Yes, I agree with that. But to play Devil's advocate, wouldn't that make social media more prone to government overreach and potential restrictions?
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  Depends. Someone needs to be held Accountable. It would reflect the government. If the government sucks, then social media is probably only one of many things that could be corrupted. It's a lot more likely that corrupting the legal system would be more destructive.

shadowgovt 2y ago

I honestly think the worst thing we could do to social media is treat it like the telephone service. Have people used telephones recently? The network is so infiltrated by scam artists (and the tooling to remove them from the network is so toothless) that it's functionally one giant attack vector against the most vulnerable telephone users these days. The fact that Google is trumpeting adding AI to a phone to detect when you are getting scammed is indicative of how badly the network has been poisoned by the lack of anyone's ability to regulate access. We already know what an unfettered free-expression network looks like. It looks like telephone and email. It's a scammer's playground.

corinroyal 2y ago
Yes. This is exactly the argument the EFF makes. Utility-style regulation involves the government picking winners who become unresponsive monopolies. Notice how OpenAI is eager to be regulated. They know that means they win. That's the opposite of what we need the FAANGS et al. to become. And personally, I don't want the government telling me how to moderate my network. The EFF recommendation is anti-trust enforcement to insure these services don't hold American communications hostage. We must attack their moats to enable smaller competitors to have at more level playing field.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  The problem is social media is inherently anti competitive. It relies on network effects, so you have to either limit their size or use utility style regulation.

zo1 2y ago

I don't see how any of this is difficult. Ban illegal content, period. Not that that's hard, it already is. And leave the rest alone. Gore/graphic content -> filter with a toggle for those that want to view it. Bullying -> does it cross the line into an actual law being broken, if so, then ban it. Makes sensitive people nervous, uncomfortable and angry -> leave it be, but if you really wanna go far stick a sentiment analysis thingie on it and allow people to selectively filter it below their own threshold. There is so much that can be done simply, without breaching anyone's freedoms and without teetering into Orwellian 1984 conspiracy territory about wide-scale mind control and opinion shifting. The problem comes when people naturally express themselves, it makes <insert group here> uncomfortable and it inconveniently bubbles up the rankings. E.g. I bet you right now that 20% of the entire american internet population simply doesn't like Biden and would mock him for his, probably innocent, old-age antics. But if that opinion were to "manifest" into some sort of catchy "Biden is old and sucks" hashtag or meme that needs reporting, well that's uncomfortable for TPTB, or the elites, or the media or whatever you wanna call it, and must be stopped. The internet is the ultimate direct-democracy tool we have right now, and it's being manipulated precisely because it breaks "representative" democracy. Another uncomfortable topic: trans people in sports. It will absolutely blow up in one direction if people were organically allowed to organize and find others with similar viewpoints. Instead, they're banned, scared into shutting up, shadow-banned, or worse cancelled and doxxed.

dangus 2y ago
Why under your specifications am I not free to start a social media network of my own that has its own rules? Why can’t I start my own social media website about cars where any topics that aren’t related to car culture and discussion are not allowed? Your line is illegality, but my line as the owner of the social media network might be something else. Is private ownership banned now?
- zo1 2y ago
  I'm all for private ownership as I'm an Libertarian/AnCap. But long story short, we have a flawed world right now, and to make it better right now, we have to work within it and that means making a completely arbitrary line. One that optimizes freedom whilst balancing the abuse, because it's clear to everyone not drinking the koolaid that social media is being used to affect public opinion. We've crossed the boundary of pure private ownership of anything many years ago. Heck, I don't even have private ownership of my own body, so a say in a highly influential component of our society is a small price to pay to keep the evil at bay.

zer00eyz 2y ago

>> but it's basically the new town hall at this point. ... then free expression should be protected. IF its the "new town hall" then were gonna have a fuck ton of rules. You're not "Free" to scream fire in a crowded building, you cant make up crisis actors and expect NOT to get sued to death.... The protection of freedom of expression exists. No one is stoping you from hosting your own platform based on what ever nonsense you make up. I dont have to give you a box to stand on, no one does. Thats not how it ever worked.

kornhole 2y ago
We already have setup NOSTR and the fediverse that interoperate with each other. Many of us have set very simple rules to comply with the first amendment and legal precedent around it which is say anything as long as it is not illegal such as directing imminent harm on someone.
jlawson 2y ago
>No one is stoping you from hosting your own platform based on what ever nonsense you make up. They actually are. CloudFlare will block you, Visa will refuse payments, Google will delist you, Apple app store will delist your app, and you'll be subject to endless legal harassment from activists if your site allows people to communicate substantially out of line with the San Francisco progressive bloc.

dangus 2y ago

I think where we have to be careful with going toward the latter idea is that not all social media platforms are general purpose, and that free expression includes a lot of unwanted content (spam, scams, off-topic posts, etc). Free expression isn’t something that can be realistically protected when a social media platform has an explicit purpose, code of conduct, and/or ideals. For example, an LGBTQ social media network has to be able to ban anti-LGBTQ content and users. Hacker News needs to be able to remove non-tech industry-related off-topic posts. /r/pcgaming needs to be able to remove posts about mobile gaming. Spam and unwanted self-promotion is often removed by moderators of social media outlets. Moderation is key to a workable social media experience. There’s also a lot of 100% legal free expression that platforms have to be able to choose not to host. Pornography is an common example. The thing that makes this topic difficult is that social media isn’t really pure person-to-person speech (e.g. like a person on soapbox) and it also isn’t really pure curated media (e.g. a television channel or news website published by an editor). It’s like a hybrid of the concepts.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

Private enterprise is bounded by considerations of the common good. So it is reasonable to regulate private enterprise when it becomes an essential service or utility, or has a huge impact on the common good.

scoofy 2y ago

4chan exists. It's really the online "free speech zone" some people seem to be pining for. I've moderated some large subreddits in the past, and am a strong free speech supporter, but I'm also actually perfectly happy not dealing with people spamming the n-word in every forum they can find because they're legally entitled to. "Congress shall make no law" really does mean congress. Unlike telephones, if the forums are open to the public, then so some decorum is needed.