6 ms·

I'm confused why most of the discussion about these issues is based on blocking the means of access to the content rather than making those hosting the content

by zknill 2y ago

I'm confused why most of the discussion about these issues is based on blocking the means of access to the content rather than making those hosting the content responsible for it. Here we're talking about banning smartphones, rather than making the social media companies responsible for their various harms. There's an idiom of 'internalise the externalities', which basically means making the party responsible for a cost bear the cost themselves. It's a useful way of making a market efficient and self-regulate, by making something that costs society also cost the producer. This kind of narrative seems to be pervasive. For example; we aren't asking the biggest polluters to bear the cost of their pollution (e.g. airlines having to reduce carbon in the atmosphere in line with the amount they produce). We didn't ask the tobacco companies to bear the cost of the public health impact they create. Instead of blocking or banning the means of access (smartphones), we should be 'internalising the externalities' and making the social media companies bear a cost inline with the negative social cost they create.

JacobThreeThree 2y ago
>Here we're talking about banning smartphones The topic is about banning smartphones for students during school, not in general. Even if social media was the best thing for your health since sliced bread, it's not appropriate for learning in a school setting.
aeturnum 2y ago
I agree with you in the long term, but like the joke about solving something with regular expressions: now you have two problems. This is an argument for an intervention to reduce a certain harm in a certain way now. We should also, independently, pursue restitution. The article brings up smoking and that seems like a good model to me. We both restricted where smoking could occur and also went after cigarette companies - both efforts were worthwhile on their own and also were generally complimentary.
squigz 2y ago
In your opinion, what would this look like? What would, say, Facebook be responsible for doing?
- zknill 2y ago
  The article gives one example: > Today, physical beat-downs are filmed and uploaded to school-based fight groups on Instagram and other platforms—where they live on more or less indefinitely (sometimes they’re forced down, but they inevitably seem to crop back up, according to educators). If a piece of content is taken down, it should remain down, and it should be the responsibility of the company hosting that content to ensure that it does not reappear. If the 'cost' of not complying (regulation, fines, etc) is large enough, then there's an incentive to invent cost effective ways of complying with this requirement. Right now, there's no real benefit to the social media companies to invest in this area. It's too easy for them to say both 'the content is user created and not our responsibility' and 'when we are informed about the content we remove it'.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >If a piece of content is taken down, it should remain down, and it should be the responsibility of the company hosting that content to ensure that it does not reappear. Completely unenforceable in any way. Social media companies can not possibly act as law enforcement for the entire Internet. >Right now, there's no real benefit to the social media companies to invest in this area. There will never be any incentive, since the proposal is ridiculous.
    - squigz 2y ago
      > Social media companies can not possibly act as law enforcement for the entire Internet. I'm fairly certain GP did not mean they would be responsible for the entire Internet; just, you know... their own platforms.
ipython 2y ago
this is an interesting thought, but how workable is this? basically these companies are so powerful and US politics are so broken that I don't see any effective regulation getting passed any time soon
- zknill 2y ago
  Various parts of the UK political system looked at a 'social media tax' that would then be funneled into the national health service for mental health. The idea was scrapped when it became clear the US would retaliate in some way (to protect their big companies).
  - shagie 2y ago
    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-need-to-register-for-digital-services-tax https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-need-to-register-fo... > Digital Services Tax is a 2% tax on the revenues derived from UK users of social media platforms, search engines and online marketplaces. > Digital Services Tax applies to revenue earned from 1 April 2020. > You need to register for the Digital Services Tax service if your business provides a social media platform, search engine or online marketplace to UK users and these digital services activities generate both: > global revenues of more than £500 million in a year > UK revenues of more than £25 million in a year --- It appears to have been implemented... and then... https://www.itpro.com/business/policy-legislation/361333/uk-to-scrap-digital-services-tax-by-2023 https://www.itpro.com/business/policy-legislation/361333/uk-... > The UK has agreed to transition its Digital Services Tax (DST) to a new global tax system proposed earlier this year, avoiding tariffs the US threatened to levy on the country in response to the policy. > The DST, announced in 2018 and introduced in April 2020, imposes a 2% tax on tech giants, the majority of which are based in the US. > The moved prompted criticism from the US government, which in turn threatened tariffs on the UK and other countries that have introduced similar policies. > However, on 8 October 2021, 136 countries agreed a plan for the new system, known as Pillar One and Pillar Two. In Pillar One, the largest and most profitable multinationals will be required to pay tax in countries where they operate, not just where they have their headquarters. The rules would apply to firms with at least a 10% profit margin and see 25% of any profit above this margin reallocated and then subjected to tax in the countries they operate. This is expected to come into effect in 2023. > ... > The US has agreed not to levy tariffs in response to the UK’s previous DST, and the UK will keep the revenue raised from the tax until the Pillar One reforms become operational. Once Pillar One is in effect, companies will be able to use the difference between what they have paid in DST from January 2022, and what they would have paid if Pillar One had been in effect instead, using it as credit against their future corporation tax bill. --- https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/faqs-two-pillar-solution-to-address-the-tax-challenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-the-economy-july-2022.pdf https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/faqs-two-pillar-solution-to-ad...
switchbak 2y ago
There's a lot of misunderstanding and oversimplification going on amongst many debating this issue, often with strong emotions. I think you're right that we need to be clear where the harm is coming from: social media and the corporations that profit from it. Blaming it on phones or even "screen time" misses the mark and makes it hard to specifically address the issue. If they take the phones away, kids will access via their laptops, watches, etc. Now it's easy to say that we should put limits and regulation in place of these corporations, and I would agree. What I'm concerned about is giving more power to governments that have shown themselves to be grossly incompetent and prone to abuse/misuse of power. I would like to think there's a way we can limit access to social media within schools, but the damage also occurs outside school hours. Maybe it's a good enough start though. Edit: elaboration.
throwanem 2y ago
In the limiting case, this requires the social media industry to implement a parallel judicial system, or else make everything hosted there immediately legible to the actual judicial system in a way that overrides any other system of visibility control. I'm not at all averse to imposing back on that industry the detriments it imposes on the society on which it feeds. I also don't think this or any other superficial solution of that problem is likely to net out better than the status quo.
constantcrying 2y ago
But these costs are inherently unquantifiable. A smartphone is an enormously useful tool, even for a child. Social media isn't something entirely negative, just having a way to access your friends and family can be a huge benefit. And even if on the whole social media is a net negative, how do you quantity that into a "cost" the social media site has to pay?
- lotu 2y ago
  We have a legal system which is specifically designed to quantify these intangible costs. That’s what pain and suffering damages are.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    But these are painfully argued over for every single case. And are based on the assumption that someone acted illegally. Millions of children are using social media, how do you continually quantify the benefit and suffering social media brings to them? How do you even measure it, statistical analysis? And why wouldn't social media just KYC and ban everyone under 18? Surely that is cheaper and in that case, why not make that the law, if that is the inevitable result. This proposal is ridiculous.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
> We didn't ask the tobacco companies to bear the cost of the public health impact they create. We actually did, we just siphoned the lawsuit settlement money off to other uses.
lotu 2y ago
I think it really matters who is talking. Which is easier for a school board to do? Take away students phones in their schools or force tictok to make their app less harmful.
anotherhue 2y ago
> I'm confused why most of the discussion about these issues is based on blocking the means of access to the content rather than making those hosting the content responsible for it. It's not just the content though, the device would be distracting if it was offline only. I wouldn't have been allowed to bring a portable television/dvd player into school either.
thefz 2y ago
> Here we're talking about banning smartphones, rather than making the social media companies responsible for their various harms. If you want to prevent minors from accessing certain content you need to check their age, thus to enforce real-life ID check, which users nor platforms want. (And fortunately since I am all for, not against, an anonymous web)

by zknill 2y ago

JacobThreeThree 2y ago

>Here we're talking about banning smartphones The topic is about banning smartphones for students during school, not in general. Even if social media was the best thing for your health since sliced bread, it's not appropriate for learning in a school setting.

aeturnum 2y ago

I agree with you in the long term, but like the joke about solving something with regular expressions: now you have two problems. This is an argument for an intervention to reduce a certain harm in a certain way now. We should also, independently, pursue restitution. The article brings up smoking and that seems like a good model to me. We both restricted where smoking could occur and also went after cigarette companies - both efforts were worthwhile on their own and also were generally complimentary.

squigz 2y ago

In your opinion, what would this look like? What would, say, Facebook be responsible for doing?

zknill 2y ago
The article gives one example: > Today, physical beat-downs are filmed and uploaded to school-based fight groups on Instagram and other platforms—where they live on more or less indefinitely (sometimes they’re forced down, but they inevitably seem to crop back up, according to educators). If a piece of content is taken down, it should remain down, and it should be the responsibility of the company hosting that content to ensure that it does not reappear. If the 'cost' of not complying (regulation, fines, etc) is large enough, then there's an incentive to invent cost effective ways of complying with this requirement. Right now, there's no real benefit to the social media companies to invest in this area. It's too easy for them to say both 'the content is user created and not our responsibility' and 'when we are informed about the content we remove it'.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >If a piece of content is taken down, it should remain down, and it should be the responsibility of the company hosting that content to ensure that it does not reappear. Completely unenforceable in any way. Social media companies can not possibly act as law enforcement for the entire Internet. >Right now, there's no real benefit to the social media companies to invest in this area. There will never be any incentive, since the proposal is ridiculous.
  - squigz 2y ago
    > Social media companies can not possibly act as law enforcement for the entire Internet. I'm fairly certain GP did not mean they would be responsible for the entire Internet; just, you know... their own platforms.

ipython 2y ago

this is an interesting thought, but how workable is this? basically these companies are so powerful and US politics are so broken that I don't see any effective regulation getting passed any time soon

zknill 2y ago
Various parts of the UK political system looked at a 'social media tax' that would then be funneled into the national health service for mental health. The idea was scrapped when it became clear the US would retaliate in some way (to protect their big companies).
- shagie 2y ago
  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-need-to-register-for-digital-services-tax https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-need-to-register-fo... > Digital Services Tax is a 2% tax on the revenues derived from UK users of social media platforms, search engines and online marketplaces. > Digital Services Tax applies to revenue earned from 1 April 2020. > You need to register for the Digital Services Tax service if your business provides a social media platform, search engine or online marketplace to UK users and these digital services activities generate both: > global revenues of more than £500 million in a year > UK revenues of more than £25 million in a year --- It appears to have been implemented... and then... https://www.itpro.com/business/policy-legislation/361333/uk-to-scrap-digital-services-tax-by-2023 https://www.itpro.com/business/policy-legislation/361333/uk-... > The UK has agreed to transition its Digital Services Tax (DST) to a new global tax system proposed earlier this year, avoiding tariffs the US threatened to levy on the country in response to the policy. > The DST, announced in 2018 and introduced in April 2020, imposes a 2% tax on tech giants, the majority of which are based in the US. > The moved prompted criticism from the US government, which in turn threatened tariffs on the UK and other countries that have introduced similar policies. > However, on 8 October 2021, 136 countries agreed a plan for the new system, known as Pillar One and Pillar Two. In Pillar One, the largest and most profitable multinationals will be required to pay tax in countries where they operate, not just where they have their headquarters. The rules would apply to firms with at least a 10% profit margin and see 25% of any profit above this margin reallocated and then subjected to tax in the countries they operate. This is expected to come into effect in 2023. > ... > The US has agreed not to levy tariffs in response to the UK’s previous DST, and the UK will keep the revenue raised from the tax until the Pillar One reforms become operational. Once Pillar One is in effect, companies will be able to use the difference between what they have paid in DST from January 2022, and what they would have paid if Pillar One had been in effect instead, using it as credit against their future corporation tax bill. --- https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/faqs-two-pillar-solution-to-address-the-tax-challenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-the-economy-july-2022.pdf https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/faqs-two-pillar-solution-to-ad...

switchbak 2y ago

There's a lot of misunderstanding and oversimplification going on amongst many debating this issue, often with strong emotions. I think you're right that we need to be clear where the harm is coming from: social media and the corporations that profit from it. Blaming it on phones or even "screen time" misses the mark and makes it hard to specifically address the issue. If they take the phones away, kids will access via their laptops, watches, etc. Now it's easy to say that we should put limits and regulation in place of these corporations, and I would agree. What I'm concerned about is giving more power to governments that have shown themselves to be grossly incompetent and prone to abuse/misuse of power. I would like to think there's a way we can limit access to social media within schools, but the damage also occurs outside school hours. Maybe it's a good enough start though. Edit: elaboration.

throwanem 2y ago

In the limiting case, this requires the social media industry to implement a parallel judicial system, or else make everything hosted there immediately legible to the actual judicial system in a way that overrides any other system of visibility control. I'm not at all averse to imposing back on that industry the detriments it imposes on the society on which it feeds. I also don't think this or any other superficial solution of that problem is likely to net out better than the status quo.

constantcrying 2y ago

But these costs are inherently unquantifiable. A smartphone is an enormously useful tool, even for a child. Social media isn't something entirely negative, just having a way to access your friends and family can be a huge benefit. And even if on the whole social media is a net negative, how do you quantity that into a "cost" the social media site has to pay?

lotu 2y ago
We have a legal system which is specifically designed to quantify these intangible costs. That’s what pain and suffering damages are.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  But these are painfully argued over for every single case. And are based on the assumption that someone acted illegally. Millions of children are using social media, how do you continually quantify the benefit and suffering social media brings to them? How do you even measure it, statistical analysis? And why wouldn't social media just KYC and ban everyone under 18? Surely that is cheaper and in that case, why not make that the law, if that is the inevitable result. This proposal is ridiculous.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

> We didn't ask the tobacco companies to bear the cost of the public health impact they create. We actually did, we just siphoned the lawsuit settlement money off to other uses.

lotu 2y ago

I think it really matters who is talking. Which is easier for a school board to do? Take away students phones in their schools or force tictok to make their app less harmful.

anotherhue 2y ago

> I'm confused why most of the discussion about these issues is based on blocking the means of access to the content rather than making those hosting the content responsible for it. It's not just the content though, the device would be distracting if it was offline only. I wouldn't have been allowed to bring a portable television/dvd player into school either.

thefz 2y ago

> Here we're talking about banning smartphones, rather than making the social media companies responsible for their various harms. If you want to prevent minors from accessing certain content you need to check their age, thus to enforce real-life ID check, which users nor platforms want. (And fortunately since I am all for, not against, an anonymous web)