6 ms·

So basically closer and closer to governmental control over social networks. Seems like a global trend everywhere. Governments will define the rules by which co

by chucke1992 2y ago

So basically closer and closer to governmental control over social networks. Seems like a global trend everywhere. Governments will define the rules by which communication services (and social networks) should operate.

whatshisface 2y ago
Given that the alternative was public control over governments, I guess it's inevitable that this would become a worldwide civil rights battle.
- zerodensity 2y ago
  What does public control over governments mean?
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    It means that the process of assimilating new information, coming to conclusions, and deciding what a nation should do is carried out in the minds of the public, not in the offices of relatively small groups who decide what they want the government to do, figure out what conclusions would support it, and then make sure the public only assimilates information that would lead them to such conclusions.
titusjohnson 2y ago
Is it really adding governmental control, or is it removing a governmental control? From my perspective Section 280 was controlling me, a private citizen, by saying "you cannot touch these entities"
passwordoops 2y ago
How is an elected government with checks and balances worse than a faceless corporation?
- genocidicbunny 2y ago
  The government tends to have a monopoly on violence, which is quite the difference. A faceless corporation will have a harder time fining you, garnishing your wages, charging you with criminal acts. (For now at least...)
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    Conversely, the US government in particular will have a harder time with bans (first amendment), shadow bans (sixth amendment), hiding details about their recommendation algorithms (FOIA). The "checks and balances" part is important.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    >The government tends to have a monopoly on violence They don't literally, as can be seen by that guy who got roughed up by the Pinkertons for the horror of accidentally being sent a Magic card he shouldn't have been. Nobody went to jail for that. So corporations have at least as much power over your life as the government, and you don't get to vote out corporations. Tell me, how do I "choose a different company" with, for example, Experian, who keeps losing my private info, refuses to assign me a valid credit score despite having a robust financial history, and can legally ruin my life?
    - aidenn0 2y ago
      > They don't literally, as can be seen by that guy who got roughed up by the Pinkertons for the horror of accidentally being sent a Magic card he shouldn't have been. Source for that? I found [1] which sounds like intimidation; maybe a case for assault depending on how they "frightened his wife" but nothing about potentiall battery, which "roughed up" would seem to imply. The Pinkertons do enough shady stuff that there's not a need to exaggerate what they do. 1: https://www.polygon.com/23695923/mtg-aftermath-pinkerton-raid-leaked-cards https://www.polygon.com/23695923/mtg-aftermath-pinkerton-rai...
- bentley 2y ago
  A faceless corporation can't throw me in jail for hosting an indie web forum.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Governments will define the rules by which communication services (and social networks) should operate As opposed to when they didn’t?
krapp 2y ago
The fix was in as soon as both parties came up with a rationale to support it and people openly started speaking about "algorithms" in the same spooky scary tones usually reserved for implied communist threats.
amscanne 2y ago
Not at all. It’s merely a question of whether social networks are shielded from liability for their recommendations, recognizing that what they choose to show you is a form of free expression that may have consequences — not an attempt to control that expression.
- srackey 2y ago
  Of course Comrade, there must be consequences for these firms pushing Counter-Revolutionary content. They can have free expression, but they must realize these algorithms are causing great harm to the Proletariat by platforming such content.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    Well it would be the same exact protections that are provided to everyone else's free speech. Yes, if you as a person start making death threats or direct calls to violence, then you could be held liable for that. Were you not aware of that? An algorithm isn't any different from any other sort of speech.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Brother, the child asphyxiation challenge isn’t political content getting unfairly banned. They would only be liable for harm that can be proven, far as I’m aware, so political speech wouldn’t be affected unless it was defamatory or something like a direct threat.
jlarocco 2y ago
I feel like that's a poor interpretation of what happened. Corporations and businesses don't inherently have rights - they only have them because we've granted them certain rights, and we already put limits on them. We don't allow cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana advertising to children, for example. And now they'll have to face the consequences of sending stupid stuff like the "black out challenge" to children. It's one thing to say, "Some idiot posted this on our platform." It's another thing altogether to promote and endorse the post and send it out to everybody. Businesses should be held responsible for their actions.
aidenn0 2y ago
IANAL, but it seems to me that Facebook from 20ish years ago would likely be fine under this ruling; it just showed you stuff that people you have marked as friends post. However, if Facebook wants to specifically pick things to surface, that's where potential liability is involved. The alleged activity in this lawsuit was TikTok either knew or should have known that it was targeting content to minors that contained challenges that was likely to result in harm if repeated. That goes well beyond simple moderation, and is even something that various social media companies have argued in court is speech made by the companies.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I think it is broader than that. It’s government control over the Internet. Sure we’re talking about forced moderation (that is, censorship) and liability issues right now. But it ultimately normalizes a type of intervention and method of control that can extend much further. Just like we’ve seen the Patriot Act normalize many violations of civil liberties, this will go much further. I hope not, but I can’t help but be cynical when I see the degree to which censorship by tech oligarchs has been accepted by society over the last 8 years.
pelorat 2y ago
All large platforms already enact EU law over US law. Moderation is required of all online services which actively target EU users in order to shield themselves from liability for user generated content. The directive in question is 2000/31/EC and is 24 years old already. It's the precursor of the EU DSA and just like it, 2000/31/EC has extraterritorial reach.
dartharva 2y ago
Well as these social networks are increasingly dominating internet use to the level that they end up being the only thing used in the internet by constituent plebeians, it makes sense that they receive as much regulatory oversight as telecom providers do.

whatshisface 2y ago

Given that the alternative was public control over governments, I guess it's inevitable that this would become a worldwide civil rights battle.

zerodensity 2y ago
What does public control over governments mean?
- whatshisface 2y ago
  It means that the process of assimilating new information, coming to conclusions, and deciding what a nation should do is carried out in the minds of the public, not in the offices of relatively small groups who decide what they want the government to do, figure out what conclusions would support it, and then make sure the public only assimilates information that would lead them to such conclusions.

titusjohnson 2y ago

Is it really adding governmental control, or is it removing a governmental control? From my perspective Section 280 was controlling me, a private citizen, by saying "you cannot touch these entities"

passwordoops 2y ago

How is an elected government with checks and balances worse than a faceless corporation?

genocidicbunny 2y ago
The government tends to have a monopoly on violence, which is quite the difference. A faceless corporation will have a harder time fining you, garnishing your wages, charging you with criminal acts. (For now at least...)
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  Conversely, the US government in particular will have a harder time with bans (first amendment), shadow bans (sixth amendment), hiding details about their recommendation algorithms (FOIA). The "checks and balances" part is important.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  >The government tends to have a monopoly on violence They don't literally, as can be seen by that guy who got roughed up by the Pinkertons for the horror of accidentally being sent a Magic card he shouldn't have been. Nobody went to jail for that. So corporations have at least as much power over your life as the government, and you don't get to vote out corporations. Tell me, how do I "choose a different company" with, for example, Experian, who keeps losing my private info, refuses to assign me a valid credit score despite having a robust financial history, and can legally ruin my life?
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    > They don't literally, as can be seen by that guy who got roughed up by the Pinkertons for the horror of accidentally being sent a Magic card he shouldn't have been. Source for that? I found [1] which sounds like intimidation; maybe a case for assault depending on how they "frightened his wife" but nothing about potentiall battery, which "roughed up" would seem to imply. The Pinkertons do enough shady stuff that there's not a need to exaggerate what they do. 1: https://www.polygon.com/23695923/mtg-aftermath-pinkerton-raid-leaked-cards https://www.polygon.com/23695923/mtg-aftermath-pinkerton-rai...
bentley 2y ago
A faceless corporation can't throw me in jail for hosting an indie web forum.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Governments will define the rules by which communication services (and social networks) should operate As opposed to when they didn’t?

krapp 2y ago

The fix was in as soon as both parties came up with a rationale to support it and people openly started speaking about "algorithms" in the same spooky scary tones usually reserved for implied communist threats.

amscanne 2y ago

Not at all. It’s merely a question of whether social networks are shielded from liability for their recommendations, recognizing that what they choose to show you is a form of free expression that may have consequences — not an attempt to control that expression.

srackey 2y ago
Of course Comrade, there must be consequences for these firms pushing Counter-Revolutionary content. They can have free expression, but they must realize these algorithms are causing great harm to the Proletariat by platforming such content.
- stale2002 2y ago
  Well it would be the same exact protections that are provided to everyone else's free speech. Yes, if you as a person start making death threats or direct calls to violence, then you could be held liable for that. Were you not aware of that? An algorithm isn't any different from any other sort of speech.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Brother, the child asphyxiation challenge isn’t political content getting unfairly banned. They would only be liable for harm that can be proven, far as I’m aware, so political speech wouldn’t be affected unless it was defamatory or something like a direct threat.

jlarocco 2y ago

I feel like that's a poor interpretation of what happened. Corporations and businesses don't inherently have rights - they only have them because we've granted them certain rights, and we already put limits on them. We don't allow cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana advertising to children, for example. And now they'll have to face the consequences of sending stupid stuff like the "black out challenge" to children. It's one thing to say, "Some idiot posted this on our platform." It's another thing altogether to promote and endorse the post and send it out to everybody. Businesses should be held responsible for their actions.

aidenn0 2y ago

IANAL, but it seems to me that Facebook from 20ish years ago would likely be fine under this ruling; it just showed you stuff that people you have marked as friends post. However, if Facebook wants to specifically pick things to surface, that's where potential liability is involved. The alleged activity in this lawsuit was TikTok either knew or should have known that it was targeting content to minors that contained challenges that was likely to result in harm if repeated. That goes well beyond simple moderation, and is even something that various social media companies have argued in court is speech made by the companies.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

I think it is broader than that. It’s government control over the Internet. Sure we’re talking about forced moderation (that is, censorship) and liability issues right now. But it ultimately normalizes a type of intervention and method of control that can extend much further. Just like we’ve seen the Patriot Act normalize many violations of civil liberties, this will go much further. I hope not, but I can’t help but be cynical when I see the degree to which censorship by tech oligarchs has been accepted by society over the last 8 years.

pelorat 2y ago

All large platforms already enact EU law over US law. Moderation is required of all online services which actively target EU users in order to shield themselves from liability for user generated content. The directive in question is 2000/31/EC and is 24 years old already. It's the precursor of the EU DSA and just like it, 2000/31/EC has extraterritorial reach.

dartharva 2y ago

Well as these social networks are increasingly dominating internet use to the level that they end up being the only thing used in the internet by constituent plebeians, it makes sense that they receive as much regulatory oversight as telecom providers do.