3 ms·

Yours is an argument to entirely wipe away user content and corporatize the whole of the Internet, a return to the days of TV and Radio. Where, in your world, c

Yours is an argument to entirely wipe away user content and corporatize the whole of the Internet, a return to the days of TV and Radio. Where, in your world, could citizens find a platform willing to allow them to share their opinions, creations, and find the like-minded?

diego_moita 1y ago
Wow! Did you really read all of that in my comment? I'd like to know where did I say that, because I can't find it.
- saynay 1y ago
  It is the end result if you expect the same level of liability as a newspaper or magazine. Every single thing you see in one of those was deliberately put there by a person (well... at least it used to be). If an agent of the print publication deliberately put something in the publication, then the liability falls on the publication and/or that person. Social media is not the same. The content being posted is not vetted by any agent of the platform, so the liability at least in part falls of the person who posted it. You could argue that the platform should share some liability that is waved as long as they at least try "hard enough" to police their platform, with whatever definition of "hard enough" is chosen. But no automated filter will be perfect, so if you demand the same level of liability as a print publication you are effectively outlawing social media entirely.
- flenserboy 1y ago
  Your position is clear: if responsible governments (lol) punish platforms for what commoners post on them, platforms wishing to survive will, sensibly, not allow commoners to post. Moderation is not enough, as unapproved things will always make it through the cracks. The deep distrust of unmoderated, un-nannied communication is also apparent: >The "but it is only transportation of information, like telephones" >argument is just ridiculous. It is valid for email at best, >it is not valid for social media. They already routinely practice >filtering of what is posted. The at best you use to describe the freedom of communication in email shows that your position has no bottom: everything and anything the masses express, even in private communications, must be policed. You also do not understand that freedom of speech in the US is not moderated or regulated by the government, and is something enjoyed by the people, not just interest or power groups, which adds to the authoritarian vibe of your post.

diego_moita 1y ago

Wow! Did you really read all of that in my comment? I'd like to know where did I say that, because I can't find it.

saynay 1y ago
It is the end result if you expect the same level of liability as a newspaper or magazine. Every single thing you see in one of those was deliberately put there by a person (well... at least it used to be). If an agent of the print publication deliberately put something in the publication, then the liability falls on the publication and/or that person. Social media is not the same. The content being posted is not vetted by any agent of the platform, so the liability at least in part falls of the person who posted it. You could argue that the platform should share some liability that is waved as long as they at least try "hard enough" to police their platform, with whatever definition of "hard enough" is chosen. But no automated filter will be perfect, so if you demand the same level of liability as a print publication you are effectively outlawing social media entirely.
flenserboy 1y ago
Your position is clear: if responsible governments (lol) punish platforms for what commoners post on them, platforms wishing to survive will, sensibly, not allow commoners to post. Moderation is not enough, as unapproved things will always make it through the cracks. The deep distrust of unmoderated, un-nannied communication is also apparent: >The "but it is only transportation of information, like telephones" >argument is just ridiculous. It is valid for email at best, >it is not valid for social media. They already routinely practice >filtering of what is posted. The at best you use to describe the freedom of communication in email shows that your position has no bottom: everything and anything the masses express, even in private communications, must be policed. You also do not understand that freedom of speech in the US is not moderated or regulated by the government, and is something enjoyed by the people, not just interest or power groups, which adds to the authoritarian vibe of your post.