2 ms·

> They're choosing the curated environments Ok, and if more power is given to the user and the user is additionally able to control their current curation, the

by stale2002 2y ago

> They're choosing the curated environments Ok, and if more power is given to the user and the user is additionally able to control their current curation, then that's fine and you can continue to have your own curated environment, and other people will also have more or less control over their own curation. Problem solved! You get to keep your curation, and other people can also change the curation on existing platforms for their own feeds. > The claim is that the curation is a problem Nope. Few people have a problem with other people having s choice of curation. Instead the solution that people are advocating for is for more curating powers to be giving to individual users so that they can choose, on current platforms, how much is curated for themselves. Easy solution.

cbsmith 2y ago
> Instead the solution that people are advocating for is for more curating powers to be giving to individual users so that they can choose, on current platforms, how much is curated for themselves. When you say "on current platforms", I presume you mean on existing social media. No, that isn't a solution. There's a reason advertising dollars eschew platforms without curation, and they're the one paying for it. Similarly, the people choosing the platform are choosing it because of the curation. If you don't like it, you're going to have to pay for your own platform and convince other people to participate in it. Good luck.
- stale2002 2y ago
  > No, that isn't a solution Yes it is a solution to a user who want to control their own moderation and curated environment. You get your environment, and other people get theirs. The problem for the user who wants their own curated environment is solved. > the people choosing the platform are choosing it because of the curation. They would be free to have that curation for themselves in this circumstance where the curation choice is given to the user. > If you don't like it You are literally commenting on a thread where the judge ruled in a way that forces liability onto social media companies for not doing this. So, the choice that social media companies now have is to either 1: give the moderation choice to the user. or 2: suffer very serious and significant liability. I am fine with either of those situations, and instead it is you and those social media companies who will have to deal with the "If you don't like it" questions, because thats what the judge said. > you're going to have to pay for your own platform No, we can instead laugh when social media companies have to pay a bunch of money due to their liability, as this judge just ruled.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

cbsmith 2y ago

> Instead the solution that people are advocating for is for more curating powers to be giving to individual users so that they can choose, on current platforms, how much is curated for themselves. When you say "on current platforms", I presume you mean on existing social media. No, that isn't a solution. There's a reason advertising dollars eschew platforms without curation, and they're the one paying for it. Similarly, the people choosing the platform are choosing it because of the curation. If you don't like it, you're going to have to pay for your own platform and convince other people to participate in it. Good luck.

stale2002 2y ago
> No, that isn't a solution Yes it is a solution to a user who want to control their own moderation and curated environment. You get your environment, and other people get theirs. The problem for the user who wants their own curated environment is solved. > the people choosing the platform are choosing it because of the curation. They would be free to have that curation for themselves in this circumstance where the curation choice is given to the user. > If you don't like it You are literally commenting on a thread where the judge ruled in a way that forces liability onto social media companies for not doing this. So, the choice that social media companies now have is to either 1: give the moderation choice to the user. or 2: suffer very serious and significant liability. I am fine with either of those situations, and instead it is you and those social media companies who will have to deal with the "If you don't like it" questions, because thats what the judge said. > you're going to have to pay for your own platform No, we can instead laugh when social media companies have to pay a bunch of money due to their liability, as this judge just ruled.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]