3 ms·

>It basically said that if the content is presented in any other way than a strict chronological timeline, it's considered "editorial content" and the platform

>It basically said that if the content is presented in any other way than a strict chronological timeline, it's considered "editorial content" and the platform is responsible for it. As soon as the volume of stuff exceeds the attention window of the average person, some kind of system is needed to prioritize things. Many sites rely on user-driven metrics to promote known-good content. So the criterion you have suggested here is completely impractical. People should stop trying to impose their views on "ragebait" and be very restrained when it comes to adding regulations on any kind of speech. Anything that gets added will be twisted into something that can oppress anyone.

smcin 2y ago
It's an interesting and severely non-trivial debate, and there's no way to 'prioritize'/'curate'/'feature'/'select' content (which controls what passively-browsing users are likely to see, unless they search or click to specific users/topics/groups) without in some way "imposing your] views". For example, all other things being equal, should known-false or misleading claims be treated equally to unknown or factually correct ones? Should posts from an account with a history of posting those be treated equally to accounts that don't? And of course who gets to determine what constitutes 'accurate'? How do we prevent community voting being misused? With every election, we are edging closer to legislating (in the US or EU) definition of social networks as a 'public good' with accompanying regulation requirement. Equally we've seen enough evidence of politically-slanted moderation or attempts to influence moderation in many countries. (This stuff is non-trivial. What about accounts that are accurate about one set of topics (e.g. the Chinese economy) but sloppy on others and post outright garbage on a third? What about accounts that 'merely' retweet or boost content, vs post their own 'original' content? Should online journalists be held to a higher standard than average users? What about 'news personalities' like the Alex Joneses of the world?) I'm very sure this debate will be revisited after the impending US election/ TikTok divestment/ Telegram controversy.

smcin 2y ago

It's an interesting and severely non-trivial debate, and there's no way to 'prioritize'/'curate'/'feature'/'select' content (which controls what passively-browsing users are likely to see, unless they search or click to specific users/topics/groups) without in some way "imposing your] views". For example, all other things being equal, should known-false or misleading claims be treated equally to unknown or factually correct ones? Should posts from an account with a history of posting those be treated equally to accounts that don't? And of course who gets to determine what constitutes 'accurate'? How do we prevent community voting being misused? With every election, we are edging closer to legislating (in the US or EU) definition of social networks as a 'public good' with accompanying regulation requirement. Equally we've seen enough evidence of politically-slanted moderation or attempts to influence moderation in many countries. (This stuff is non-trivial. What about accounts that are accurate about one set of topics (e.g. the Chinese economy) but sloppy on others and post outright garbage on a third? What about accounts that 'merely' retweet or boost content, vs post their own 'original' content? Should online journalists be held to a higher standard than average users? What about 'news personalities' like the Alex Joneses of the world?) I'm very sure this debate will be revisited after the impending US election/ TikTok divestment/ Telegram controversy.