4 ms·

As a conservative I definitely disagree Republicans pushing such legislation, though I sympathize with the need to respond to what appears to be a systematic at

As a conservative I definitely disagree Republicans pushing such legislation, though I sympathize with the need to respond to what appears to be a systematic attempt to control the discourse. The right strategy is a two pronged approach: The first (and most important) is to address government pressure, and to establish strong First Amendment protections against Congress and federal agencies from putting their thumb on the scale. This unfortunately failed in Murthy v. Missouri, but since it was rejected for reasons of standing rather than on statutory grounds, I think there is good reason to think this could succeed in the future (especially because there is prior precedent stating that the government cannot pressure private actors to do anything the government itself does not have the power to do directly). The second approach is to focus on how Section 230 is enforced. Section 230 grants broad immunity to social media companies to engage in content moderation without liability (as it should) but I think we need to establish what is meant by "good faith" moderation. The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed, and any moderation beyond that is done by users customizing their own experience. A pattern of moderation which is contrary to stated policy, especially when it is contrary to the interests of users, could be "bad faith" moderation that would exempt the platform from Section 230 protections, and possibly be considered an unfair business practice (and thus subject to civil litigation). I think this would be in the best interests of all social media users of every political stripe. And none of this would prevent social media companies from systematically suppressing conservative content as "disinformation", but it would prevent them from doing so surreptitiously or under pressure from the government.

beej71 2y ago
> The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed, and any moderation beyond that is done by users customizing their own experience. A pattern of moderation which is contrary to stated policy, especially when it is contrary to the interests of users, could be "bad faith" moderation that would exempt the platform from Section 230 protections This sounds a lot like we're kicking the can of worms down the road. Now we have to define what content is allowed and someone has to decide if some action is contrary to that policy. We're also giving the power to the government to rescind 230 and I don't doubt for a moment that an administration could find reason to do so particularly for media sites it doesn't appreciate... Finally, we have to define if something is contrary to the interests of users, meaning we have to define the interests of users... holy cow. I think less is more in this case. There are enough social media sites out there that you can dial in pretty exactly what you want to see, no matter your persuasion.
- lliamander 2y ago
  > This sounds a lot like we're kicking the can of worms down the road. > Now we have to define what content is allowed and someone has to decide if some action is contrary to that policy. I mean that the social media platform has to be explicit about what they allow. It doesn't matter what social media platform wants to allow (provided it is legal) so long as they tell their users what it is. > Finally, we have to define if something is contrary to the interests of users, meaning we have to define the interests of users... holy cow. IANAL, but it seems to me this kind of thing already comes up all the time in things like contract law, employement law, unfair business practices, etc. > I think less is more in this case. There are enough social media sites out there that you can dial in pretty exactly what you want to see, no matter your persuasion. I agree. What I am proposing requires no new legislation, and merely requires us to enforce existing legislation more or less as it is written.
techostritch 2y ago
I think it becomes too hard to define good faith moderation. Unless maybe you try to define how big a company is? One of the reasons Elon Musk bought Twitter was because the Babylon Bee was moderated for misgendering a trans person. I could see an argument for why this might not be ok, but for me the same argument to me would fall apart on the /lgbt or /trans subreddits. I don’t love the idea (nor do I think it’s feasible to distinguish) when you’re social media site becomes a “public square” and now your moderation decisions have to have some standard… regulated by the government? Which I think circles back to being a valid 1st amendment concern.
- lliamander 2y ago
  > One of the reasons Elon Musk bought Twitter was because the Babylon Bee was moderated for misgendering a trans person. I could see an argument for why this might not be ok, but for me the same argument to me would fall apart on the /lgbt or /trans subreddits. That's sort of precisely my point. It's all about social media companies setting forth clear policies about what is acceptable on their platform, and ensuring that their moderation is consistent with that policy. If Twitter wants to ban misgendering, let them. But they have to tell people. You can't claim to be the town square on the one hand and try to shape the discourse on the other. I personally would prefer to use social platforms which establish boundaries on content. HN is an excellent example, and essentially the only "social media" I publish on for that very reason. But HN makes sure to tell people what is acceptable.
lliamander 2y ago
EDIT: I want to clarify something. When I say: > The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed What I mean is that each social media platform needs to define what content is acceptable within its own terms. They don't necessarily need to be super detailed, but they should be explicit enough that people are able understand what is and is not allowed (or de-ranked, shadow-banned, etc.) What I am trying to avoid here is people using social media under false pretenses. If a social media platform claims to be a neutral town square, but then behind the scenes tries to shape the discourse for their own political ends, that would be a false pretense.

beej71 2y ago

> The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed, and any moderation beyond that is done by users customizing their own experience. A pattern of moderation which is contrary to stated policy, especially when it is contrary to the interests of users, could be "bad faith" moderation that would exempt the platform from Section 230 protections This sounds a lot like we're kicking the can of worms down the road. Now we have to define what content is allowed and someone has to decide if some action is contrary to that policy. We're also giving the power to the government to rescind 230 and I don't doubt for a moment that an administration could find reason to do so particularly for media sites it doesn't appreciate... Finally, we have to define if something is contrary to the interests of users, meaning we have to define the interests of users... holy cow. I think less is more in this case. There are enough social media sites out there that you can dial in pretty exactly what you want to see, no matter your persuasion.

lliamander 2y ago
> This sounds a lot like we're kicking the can of worms down the road. > Now we have to define what content is allowed and someone has to decide if some action is contrary to that policy. I mean that the social media platform has to be explicit about what they allow. It doesn't matter what social media platform wants to allow (provided it is legal) so long as they tell their users what it is. > Finally, we have to define if something is contrary to the interests of users, meaning we have to define the interests of users... holy cow. IANAL, but it seems to me this kind of thing already comes up all the time in things like contract law, employement law, unfair business practices, etc. > I think less is more in this case. There are enough social media sites out there that you can dial in pretty exactly what you want to see, no matter your persuasion. I agree. What I am proposing requires no new legislation, and merely requires us to enforce existing legislation more or less as it is written.

techostritch 2y ago

I think it becomes too hard to define good faith moderation. Unless maybe you try to define how big a company is? One of the reasons Elon Musk bought Twitter was because the Babylon Bee was moderated for misgendering a trans person. I could see an argument for why this might not be ok, but for me the same argument to me would fall apart on the /lgbt or /trans subreddits. I don’t love the idea (nor do I think it’s feasible to distinguish) when you’re social media site becomes a “public square” and now your moderation decisions have to have some standard… regulated by the government? Which I think circles back to being a valid 1st amendment concern.

lliamander 2y ago
> One of the reasons Elon Musk bought Twitter was because the Babylon Bee was moderated for misgendering a trans person. I could see an argument for why this might not be ok, but for me the same argument to me would fall apart on the /lgbt or /trans subreddits. That's sort of precisely my point. It's all about social media companies setting forth clear policies about what is acceptable on their platform, and ensuring that their moderation is consistent with that policy. If Twitter wants to ban misgendering, let them. But they have to tell people. You can't claim to be the town square on the one hand and try to shape the discourse on the other. I personally would prefer to use social platforms which establish boundaries on content. HN is an excellent example, and essentially the only "social media" I publish on for that very reason. But HN makes sure to tell people what is acceptable.

lliamander 2y ago

EDIT: I want to clarify something. When I say: > The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed What I mean is that each social media platform needs to define what content is acceptable within its own terms. They don't necessarily need to be super detailed, but they should be explicit enough that people are able understand what is and is not allowed (or de-ranked, shadow-banned, etc.) What I am trying to avoid here is people using social media under false pretenses. If a social media platform claims to be a neutral town square, but then behind the scenes tries to shape the discourse for their own political ends, that would be a false pretense.