2 ms·

With a little imagination we can pull that string quite far. If TikTok can change public opinion then they must have speech right? How do they have speech with

With a little imagination we can pull that string quite far. If TikTok can change public opinion then they must have speech right? How do they have speech without speaking? They have speech by filtering and weighing things a specific way. If you can speak without speaking then how does Section 230 come into play? If platforms can speak and have opinions and affect public opinion then whey do they get Section 230 protections? Should the algorithms be open sourced and transparent (or banned) since they have so much power? It raises a lot of questions that we have put off answering. I think the (distant) relevance of Section 230 makes big tech scared to talk about it since that's their cash-cow.

krapp 2y ago
>If you can speak without speaking then how does Section 230 come into play? If platforms can speak and have opinions and affect public opinion then whey do they get Section 230 protections? Section 230 exists specifically to allow platforms to "have opinions and affect public opinion." Liability resides with the accounts making the content, not the platform. It would be impossible to have any degree of free expression on the internet if platforms were legally liable for everything posted there, or if they could be sued over every moderation decision they make. >It raises a lot of questions that we have put off answering. We haven't put off answering anything. We have the answers. Platforms are allowed to moderate content. They're allowed to filter and present content in whatever way they want. They're allowed to have a bias. There is no gray area here, no matter how badly people want there to be one.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Sure. But there is also a gaping hole of regulation in this area. They can strongly sway public opinion with their algorithms? That sounds dangerous- let's regulate that as we do other forms of media. Then we see droves of nerds come out about how sacred the dang internet is and all of that and it shall never be regulated unless you're a fascist.
  - krapp 2y ago
    In a free society, particularly the US where mistrust of the government and status quo narrative is baked into the culture, the ability to "sway public opinion" is a feature, not a bug. And on social media that ability is held primarily by the public. Not in the sense of social media being a public forum, but no true public forum does or arguably can exist on the internet anyway. Notwithstanding conspiracies about deepfakes and false flags and fears of "algorithms" and "Chinese mind control," social media is the only real balancing force against corporate and government propaganda that there is. Even with its faults I think it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to just have the government regulate it, which in essence would mean severely limiting the free speech rights of both the platforms and the people who use them. I know people think that government regulating social media means some kind of laissez-faire free for all where all legal speech will be allowed without consequence (which would be even less moderation than you find on 4chan) but that is very much not how it would go.

krapp 2y ago

>If you can speak without speaking then how does Section 230 come into play? If platforms can speak and have opinions and affect public opinion then whey do they get Section 230 protections? Section 230 exists specifically to allow platforms to "have opinions and affect public opinion." Liability resides with the accounts making the content, not the platform. It would be impossible to have any degree of free expression on the internet if platforms were legally liable for everything posted there, or if they could be sued over every moderation decision they make. >It raises a lot of questions that we have put off answering. We haven't put off answering anything. We have the answers. Platforms are allowed to moderate content. They're allowed to filter and present content in whatever way they want. They're allowed to have a bias. There is no gray area here, no matter how badly people want there to be one.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Sure. But there is also a gaping hole of regulation in this area. They can strongly sway public opinion with their algorithms? That sounds dangerous- let's regulate that as we do other forms of media. Then we see droves of nerds come out about how sacred the dang internet is and all of that and it shall never be regulated unless you're a fascist.
- krapp 2y ago
  In a free society, particularly the US where mistrust of the government and status quo narrative is baked into the culture, the ability to "sway public opinion" is a feature, not a bug. And on social media that ability is held primarily by the public. Not in the sense of social media being a public forum, but no true public forum does or arguably can exist on the internet anyway. Notwithstanding conspiracies about deepfakes and false flags and fears of "algorithms" and "Chinese mind control," social media is the only real balancing force against corporate and government propaganda that there is. Even with its faults I think it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to just have the government regulate it, which in essence would mean severely limiting the free speech rights of both the platforms and the people who use them. I know people think that government regulating social media means some kind of laissez-faire free for all where all legal speech will be allowed without consequence (which would be even less moderation than you find on 4chan) but that is very much not how it would go.