4 ms·

Honest question: it seems like the left and right might really agree here on limiting the legal protections for social media companies. Don't we want companies

Honest question: it seems like the left and right might really agree here on limiting the legal protections for social media companies. Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?

robertlagrant 2y ago
> Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation? I don't particularly. I don't think it's their job to have that power.
- rolandog 2y ago
  I respectfully disagree... They already exercise some censorship that is mostly biased towards the interests of the company (e.g. instances of war crimes being censored on Meta platforms). Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth (and, partially to us)... Not to whomever they sell our private data to. I think this is crucial distinction which may help reduce politization.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth I don't understand how this would work. Who determines what's true?
    - rolandog 2y ago
      At the very least, you could try differentiating between opinions and facts... And facts could be verified via knowledge graphs. It'd have to be open-source and reproducibility should be a core value (so we can start healing some of the scientific fields' reproducibility crises). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph
- swatcoder 2y ago
  If I had precise control over what feeds I see, I'd agree with you. But they insert ads and content I've never subscribed to, with no way to prevent either. They also selectively suppress content that I have subscribed to. That doesn't sound like a neutral conveyance of information. In fact, it sounds like they're already exercising the power you'd prefer they not have, according to private algorithms and policies that offer none of transparency or accountability that comes with public regulation. Whatever you'd prefer, it's already disappearing from the rear view mirror. Facebook 2024 is not Facebook 2008, nor are any of its peers.
  - JAlexoid 2y ago
    > they're already exercising the power you'd prefer they not have Maybe you would prefer they wouldn't have it, but I prefer that private companies run their moderation as they see fit for the market.
- maxerickson 2y ago
  Can they classify gore so that I can ask them not show it, or is that overstepping their role? If they can do that, how do you draw other lines? And then if your answer is no, why do you think you should be able to dictate a rule that is so harmful to their business?
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Sorry, what is the rule I think they should dictate?
    - maxerickson 2y ago
      I asked you if they should be allowed to do something like classify gore. If your answer is no, then you are dictating that they can't do something beneficial to their business.
pavlov 2y ago
Do you think the American right wants Twitter/X or Truth Social to be responsible for misinformation?
- eigart 2y ago
  The law can be applied selectively.
  - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
    If you forgo the rule of law, and suspend the 14th amendment. But not a democratic society, under a dictatorship it's a given... I guess you get what your society votes for though.
  - SimianSci 2y ago
    So dictatorship. This would mean that whoever controls power, controls how the law is applied. Not what I call sustainable governance.
  - refurb 2y ago
    Even better, there can be no law at all and the government (Office of the President) and law enforcement (FBI) can covertly apply pressure directly to the C-suite to have the “wrong” information suppressed on each platform.
dataflow 2y ago
> Honest question: it seems like the left and right might really agree here on limiting the legal protections for social media companies. How do you imagine the "TikTok ban" playing out under a left vs. right administration?
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  But that wasn't what he talked about, was it? It's about getting rid of section 230.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    Sorry, I was too indirect. My point was, both parties supposedly agreed on the TikTok ban. Yet the candidate for one of them suddenly did a 180 after it passed, and will in all likelihood prevent it from having any effect. So I wouldn't really assume they have similar desires for protections (or lack thereof) for social media companies just because similar words come out of their mouths at some point in time.
viraptor 2y ago
I see those as slightly related, but not really in agreement. Right side is more "control what the media can say". Left is more "control what effects media has". The second involves more responsibility, but not necessarily less protection. There's nuance in that. Meta being responsible for lack of moderation is not the same as Meta being responsible for the specific content people post.
spondylosaurus 2y ago
We do, but the ultra-wealthy owners of Meta et al don't, and they're the ones with large wallets and direct lines to coming administration. How a party can bill itself as a champion of the working class while also being in the pocket of dozens of billionaires is beyond me.
- culi 2y ago
  Both parties are in the pockets of billionaires. The only astounding part is how Trump, whose personal business history includes illegal labor rights violations and has always had a vitriol for unions, is sometimes preferred over Biden, who's been the best president for labor in over 100 years "It's the economy, stupid" is an old and tired cliché. Really its "the vibe of the economy"
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    I think the vibe is "no point being the best president for labour if things cost far more".
    - pessimizer 2y ago
      Or when you break a railroad strike.
    - spondylosaurus 2y ago
      The thing that I still haven't grasped—and this isn't snark, I truly haven't wrapped my head around it—is why people think "things cost more" (1) is the direct result of government rather than a coordinated effort from retailers raising prices, and (2) why the GOP is the party to fix this when they're the ones historically opposed to both business regulation and minimum wage increases.
      - refurb 2y ago
        People don’t “think” things cost more, things actually cost more. I don’t think they care why it happened, they care about it being fixed.
Terr_ 2y ago
I saw a Techdirt comment related to this (specifically on Section 230) which I thought was rather insightful [0]. To summarize with my own Don Quixote analogy: The politicians are tilting at windmills to create the appearance of Doing Something. Their followers perceive them as successful because the illusory opposition (Dragons) seem to be gone, and they're merely confused when you tell them about the "unrelated" vandalism of local windmills. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/05/no-section-230-doesnt-circumvent-the-first-amendment-but-this-harvard-article-circumvents-reality/#comment-4086558 https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/05/no-section-230-doesnt-ci...
wwweston 2y ago
"being wrong about 230 is bipartisan" https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
keernan 2y ago
> it seems like the left and right might really agree What difference would that make if they do? The last time around the public hated Ajit Pai's running of the FCC. If that didn't change anything back then, what makes you think what the public thinks will impact a Trump led FCC this time around?
_moof 2y ago
Yes. Now define "misinformation." (Good luck.) And how do you feel about the government getting to decide what that definition is?
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  I'm not sure we have to. If you just make a company responsible for what they've posted, then the civil court system will probably figure that out, won't it?
  - metamet 2y ago
    Who is going to bring them to court? Who is going to pay for these court cases? Who has the money to draw them our indefinitely?
  - JAlexoid 2y ago
    Companies are already responsible for what they post.(see Dominion lawsuit) Companies aren't, and should not be, responsible for what other people post on their websites.(See Section 230 prehistory)
    - Barracoon 2y ago
      Should they be responsible for what they algorithimcally show to users?
      - JAlexoid 2y ago
        No. And you literally wrote why... Algorithmically promoting something isn't a matter of an opinion expressed by the company. But neither is a company liable just because they engage in moderation.
  - krapp 2y ago
    You want to make the civil court system responsible for litigating the truth or falsehood of every comment, post and claim made on the internet? Why not just make a separate court system instead of tying up the existing one? We couldn't call it the Ministry of Truth because it's the US, but maybe Bureau of Truth?
judah 2y ago
> "Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?" No. This is one of those questions that sounds easy but is hard in practice. Sure, it's bad for society if a lot of people promote an obviously false idea such as flat earth. But do we want companies like Meta to suppress that information? That creates kind of its own set of problems. For example, it creates a sense of persecution, which generates more followers. ("Big tech is censoring me!") And you can't really automate that, because then you could inadvertently block e.g. people discussing history about ancient cultures and their views of the earth. So humans have to be involved. Now throw politics and money into the mix and it gets murkier still. Was it misinformation when people said the state of Georgia elected President Trump even before all the votes were counted? (And the inverse: was it misinformation that CNN refused to call Georgia for President Trump even when it became mathematically impossible for Senator Harris to win it?) It was not long ago when the COVID accidental lab leak theory was considered misinformation. Do you want Facebook censoring posts about that? Now that theory enjoys status as a real possibility. What was once considered misinformation is now considered a possible, even plausible theory. Too often tech folks try to think in binary here: either misinformation or factual information. But reality isn't always so clear cut. I don't want social media companies being the arbiter of what's true.
- krapp 2y ago
  >But do we want companies like Meta to suppress that information? That creates kind of its own set of problems. For example, it creates a sense of persecution, which generates more followers. ("Big tech is censoring me!") I don't think that's the question. Companies like Meta are already allowed to "suppress" that information by moderating content. But that isn't an enforcement of universal "truth," since a platform can only moderate itself. I think the question is whether the government should be allowed to determine what is and isn't truth and force all platforms to either suppress or publish based on that determination alone. That's what repealing Section 230 would lead to. >It was not long ago when the COVID accidental lab leak theory was considered misinformation. Do you want Facebook censoring posts about that? Now that theory enjoys status as a real possibility. What was once considered misinformation is now considered a possible, even plausible theory. OK? And were people sent to the gulags because Facebook banned discussion of it? Did it even hinder popular discussion of the lab leak theory in any significant way? From what I recall, it didn't. >I don't want social media companies being the arbiter of what's true. They aren't, and never have been. But you do seem to want government to be the arbiter of what's true, and that seems worse to me. Yes, mistakes can be made where attempts to adjudicate truth and misinformation are concerned, but between being banned from Facebook or having men with guns knock down my door for publishing illegal facts, I'd rather have the former.

robertlagrant 2y ago

> Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation? I don't particularly. I don't think it's their job to have that power.

rolandog 2y ago
I respectfully disagree... They already exercise some censorship that is mostly biased towards the interests of the company (e.g. instances of war crimes being censored on Meta platforms). Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth (and, partially to us)... Not to whomever they sell our private data to. I think this is crucial distinction which may help reduce politization.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > Holding them accountable would make them beholden to the truth I don't understand how this would work. Who determines what's true?
  - rolandog 2y ago
    At the very least, you could try differentiating between opinions and facts... And facts could be verified via knowledge graphs. It'd have to be open-source and reproducibility should be a core value (so we can start healing some of the scientific fields' reproducibility crises). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_graph
swatcoder 2y ago
If I had precise control over what feeds I see, I'd agree with you. But they insert ads and content I've never subscribed to, with no way to prevent either. They also selectively suppress content that I have subscribed to. That doesn't sound like a neutral conveyance of information. In fact, it sounds like they're already exercising the power you'd prefer they not have, according to private algorithms and policies that offer none of transparency or accountability that comes with public regulation. Whatever you'd prefer, it's already disappearing from the rear view mirror. Facebook 2024 is not Facebook 2008, nor are any of its peers.
- JAlexoid 2y ago
  > they're already exercising the power you'd prefer they not have Maybe you would prefer they wouldn't have it, but I prefer that private companies run their moderation as they see fit for the market.
maxerickson 2y ago
Can they classify gore so that I can ask them not show it, or is that overstepping their role? If they can do that, how do you draw other lines? And then if your answer is no, why do you think you should be able to dictate a rule that is so harmful to their business?
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Sorry, what is the rule I think they should dictate?
  - maxerickson 2y ago
    I asked you if they should be allowed to do something like classify gore. If your answer is no, then you are dictating that they can't do something beneficial to their business.

pavlov 2y ago

Do you think the American right wants Twitter/X or Truth Social to be responsible for misinformation?

eigart 2y ago
The law can be applied selectively.
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  If you forgo the rule of law, and suspend the 14th amendment. But not a democratic society, under a dictatorship it's a given... I guess you get what your society votes for though.
- SimianSci 2y ago
  So dictatorship. This would mean that whoever controls power, controls how the law is applied. Not what I call sustainable governance.
- refurb 2y ago
  Even better, there can be no law at all and the government (Office of the President) and law enforcement (FBI) can covertly apply pressure directly to the C-suite to have the “wrong” information suppressed on each platform.

dataflow 2y ago

> Honest question: it seems like the left and right might really agree here on limiting the legal protections for social media companies. How do you imagine the "TikTok ban" playing out under a left vs. right administration?

Schiendelman 2y ago
But that wasn't what he talked about, was it? It's about getting rid of section 230.
- dataflow 2y ago
  Sorry, I was too indirect. My point was, both parties supposedly agreed on the TikTok ban. Yet the candidate for one of them suddenly did a 180 after it passed, and will in all likelihood prevent it from having any effect. So I wouldn't really assume they have similar desires for protections (or lack thereof) for social media companies just because similar words come out of their mouths at some point in time.

viraptor 2y ago

I see those as slightly related, but not really in agreement. Right side is more "control what the media can say". Left is more "control what effects media has". The second involves more responsibility, but not necessarily less protection. There's nuance in that. Meta being responsible for lack of moderation is not the same as Meta being responsible for the specific content people post.

spondylosaurus 2y ago

We do, but the ultra-wealthy owners of Meta et al don't, and they're the ones with large wallets and direct lines to coming administration. How a party can bill itself as a champion of the working class while also being in the pocket of dozens of billionaires is beyond me.

culi 2y ago
Both parties are in the pockets of billionaires. The only astounding part is how Trump, whose personal business history includes illegal labor rights violations and has always had a vitriol for unions, is sometimes preferred over Biden, who's been the best president for labor in over 100 years "It's the economy, stupid" is an old and tired cliché. Really its "the vibe of the economy"
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  I think the vibe is "no point being the best president for labour if things cost far more".
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    Or when you break a railroad strike.
  - spondylosaurus 2y ago
    The thing that I still haven't grasped—and this isn't snark, I truly haven't wrapped my head around it—is why people think "things cost more" (1) is the direct result of government rather than a coordinated effort from retailers raising prices, and (2) why the GOP is the party to fix this when they're the ones historically opposed to both business regulation and minimum wage increases.
    - refurb 2y ago
      People don’t “think” things cost more, things actually cost more. I don’t think they care why it happened, they care about it being fixed.

Terr_ 2y ago

I saw a Techdirt comment related to this (specifically on Section 230) which I thought was rather insightful [0]. To summarize with my own Don Quixote analogy: The politicians are tilting at windmills to create the appearance of Doing Something. Their followers perceive them as successful because the illusory opposition (Dragons) seem to be gone, and they're merely confused when you tell them about the "unrelated" vandalism of local windmills. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/05/no-section-230-doesnt-circumvent-the-first-amendment-but-this-harvard-article-circumvents-reality/#comment-4086558 https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/05/no-section-230-doesnt-ci...

wwweston 2y ago

"being wrong about 230 is bipartisan" https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

keernan 2y ago

> it seems like the left and right might really agree What difference would that make if they do? The last time around the public hated Ajit Pai's running of the FCC. If that didn't change anything back then, what makes you think what the public thinks will impact a Trump led FCC this time around?

_moof 2y ago

Yes. Now define "misinformation." (Good luck.) And how do you feel about the government getting to decide what that definition is?

Schiendelman 2y ago
I'm not sure we have to. If you just make a company responsible for what they've posted, then the civil court system will probably figure that out, won't it?
- metamet 2y ago
  Who is going to bring them to court? Who is going to pay for these court cases? Who has the money to draw them our indefinitely?
- JAlexoid 2y ago
  Companies are already responsible for what they post.(see Dominion lawsuit) Companies aren't, and should not be, responsible for what other people post on their websites.(See Section 230 prehistory)
  - Barracoon 2y ago
    Should they be responsible for what they algorithimcally show to users?
    - JAlexoid 2y ago
      No. And you literally wrote why... Algorithmically promoting something isn't a matter of an opinion expressed by the company. But neither is a company liable just because they engage in moderation.
- krapp 2y ago
  You want to make the civil court system responsible for litigating the truth or falsehood of every comment, post and claim made on the internet? Why not just make a separate court system instead of tying up the existing one? We couldn't call it the Ministry of Truth because it's the US, but maybe Bureau of Truth?

judah 2y ago

> "Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?" No. This is one of those questions that sounds easy but is hard in practice. Sure, it's bad for society if a lot of people promote an obviously false idea such as flat earth. But do we want companies like Meta to suppress that information? That creates kind of its own set of problems. For example, it creates a sense of persecution, which generates more followers. ("Big tech is censoring me!") And you can't really automate that, because then you could inadvertently block e.g. people discussing history about ancient cultures and their views of the earth. So humans have to be involved. Now throw politics and money into the mix and it gets murkier still. Was it misinformation when people said the state of Georgia elected President Trump even before all the votes were counted? (And the inverse: was it misinformation that CNN refused to call Georgia for President Trump even when it became mathematically impossible for Senator Harris to win it?) It was not long ago when the COVID accidental lab leak theory was considered misinformation. Do you want Facebook censoring posts about that? Now that theory enjoys status as a real possibility. What was once considered misinformation is now considered a possible, even plausible theory. Too often tech folks try to think in binary here: either misinformation or factual information. But reality isn't always so clear cut. I don't want social media companies being the arbiter of what's true.

krapp 2y ago
>But do we want companies like Meta to suppress that information? That creates kind of its own set of problems. For example, it creates a sense of persecution, which generates more followers. ("Big tech is censoring me!") I don't think that's the question. Companies like Meta are already allowed to "suppress" that information by moderating content. But that isn't an enforcement of universal "truth," since a platform can only moderate itself. I think the question is whether the government should be allowed to determine what is and isn't truth and force all platforms to either suppress or publish based on that determination alone. That's what repealing Section 230 would lead to. >It was not long ago when the COVID accidental lab leak theory was considered misinformation. Do you want Facebook censoring posts about that? Now that theory enjoys status as a real possibility. What was once considered misinformation is now considered a possible, even plausible theory. OK? And were people sent to the gulags because Facebook banned discussion of it? Did it even hinder popular discussion of the lab leak theory in any significant way? From what I recall, it didn't. >I don't want social media companies being the arbiter of what's true. They aren't, and never have been. But you do seem to want government to be the arbiter of what's true, and that seems worse to me. Yes, mistakes can be made where attempts to adjudicate truth and misinformation are concerned, but between being banned from Facebook or having men with guns knock down my door for publishing illegal facts, I'd rather have the former.