4 ms·

Not OP, but I don't consider regulating social media as "censorship" at all because the nature of foreign owned social media platforms means that you do not kno

Not OP, but I don't consider regulating social media as "censorship" at all because the nature of foreign owned social media platforms means that you do not know if it is your own citizens talking or some foreign agent with their own vested interest. Media and communication platforms in every country is regulated. All countries also have stricter regulations for foreign media and telecom companies. Online platforms - who are now media and communication platform - have somehow managed to wriggle by most governments so far, and even become dominant, without any oversights. That does not bode well for any country, including democratic ones. This kind of digital colonisation is the most egregious mistake made by the Global South, and they are just now waking up to it, hoping to reign it before it is too late.

Ajedi32 1y ago
"Stricter regulations" like what? It's easy to talk in the abstract about how "someone ought to do something", but if you're not asking for censorship then what exactly are you asking for? Without any specifics, "government oversight" of what people are saying to each other on social media gives off some very Orwellian vibes in my mind...
- thisislife2 1y ago
  > "Stricter regulations" like what? For communication platforms (messengers) - the same kind that telecom companies are bound to, for example. For social media platforms - similar to what older media platforms are bound on content, editorial / journalistic format and integrity etc. Both also require new, stricter privacy and data laws. I live in a democracy and I find the idea of BigTech "regulating" itself while also being a bastion of "free speech" to be an oxymoron, especially a foreign one.
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    >For communication platforms (messengers) - the same kind that telecom companies are bound to, for example. So, like, maximum response time to outages? That kind of thing? Do you actually understand what you're asking for? Those sorts of regulations exist as consumer protections, because you're paying for a service, so a minimum standard of quality is required. You don't pay for WhatsApp, Telegram, Matrix, etc. If your country tried asking for something unreasonable out of those companies, all it would do is make those companies block your country off. >For social media platforms - similar to what older media platforms are bound on content, editorial / journalistic format and integrity etc. Totally absurd. First, social media platforms are not journalistic outlets. What, because Bloomberg posts videos to YouTube, every YouTuber should abide by the same kinds of standards that Bloomberg abides by? Second, I don't know where you live, but if your country has free speech in its constitution, it doesn't have regulation of journalists. Those things are in direct contradiction. Now, of course there are defamation laws, but other than that, the government in a country with free speech cannot regulate the speech of journalists. Things like journalistic integrity and such are matters of etiquette, not legality. There are no laws that, say, forbid a journalist from revealing his sources; it's just that if he does, no one will trust them again.
    - thisislife2 1y ago
      > Do you actually understand what you're asking for? Those sorts of regulations exist as consumer protections, because you're paying for a service ... Yes, I do understand what I am asking for - these should indeed be paid services (subsidised by the government through a common national communication infrastructure, to make it cheaper for ordinary people). This gives three benefits - (1) strong consumer rights (no grey areas about who owns your data, better privacy, better recourse on poor service, mandated inter-connection between networks etc.), (2) creates a more competitive market (right now, the biggest problem with "free" services are that you need a lot of money, for a very long period, to compete with them, thus giving rich, foreign corporates a natural advantage) and (3) reduces surveillance capitalism and protects national security. > You don't pay for WhatsApp, Telegram, Matrix, etc. We do pay for it with our personal data that is mined to create profiles which is then used to manipulate us with advertisement. This data is also sold to (foreign) intelligence agencies thereby endangering a country's national security. > First, social media platforms are not journalistic outlets. If you speak publicly, to a mass audience, you need to care about what you say, just as newspapers / news channels are obliged to do so. If you create content for a mass audience, you should abide by the content regulation that the television and movies do too. > if your country has free speech in its constitution, it doesn't have regulation of journalists. My country (India) doesn't prescribe absolute free speech for individuals, like the US does (for various reasons, which we indians are comfortable with). Indian courts however uphold a higher threshold for restricting free speech in the media, to prevent governments from abusing their power. By regulation for editors and journalists, I was talking about a different kind of regulation - in the old media (newspapers) once you appointed an editor or a journalist, there is a very high bar to fire them. This kind of job security allowed editors and journalists more freedom to resist editorial interferences from their employees, thus empowering the fourth estate in our democracy. There is also a high restriction to hiring foreigners for such jobs. (This is no longer the case for newer media and we can already see the crap it has become). A similar kind of setup can be enforced for social media reviewers too, ensuring platform owners and algorithm don't control the flow of info on it, and local people (and not foreigners) do.
      - fluoridation 1y ago
fluoridation 1y ago
>you do not know if it is your own citizens talking or some foreign agent with their own vested interest You wouldn't know that if the site was from your own country either. Could you be sure your neighbor is not a foreign spy? >I don't consider regulating social media as "censorship" at all To clarify, you don't consider it censorship because you believe your government would make it more difficult for foreigners alone to use their speech, and never your own countrymen. You're either delusional or adorably naive. Inevitably, censorship will get used against you, either to silence you or to silence speech you would want to hear. Anyone who calls for censorship is a useful idiot.
- thisislife2 1y ago
  I am just restating my faith in my country's democracy to protect my rights, than any private BigTech or foreign government. You, on the other hand, are deliberately ignoring that foreign media platforms have, and are, used for malicious purposes against a state.
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    I'm not ignoring it, I simply don't care. I recognize that misinformation is going to be spread and act accordingly, by fact-checking and suspending judgement. What you want is for a government entity to decide for you which statements are "true" and which are "false" and to be shown only the "true" ones. It's idiotic. Even if the government has your best interest in mind (which it doesn't; at any given time the ruling party is self-interested), outsourcing your critical thinking faculties is not something you should want.

Ajedi32 1y ago

"Stricter regulations" like what? It's easy to talk in the abstract about how "someone ought to do something", but if you're not asking for censorship then what exactly are you asking for? Without any specifics, "government oversight" of what people are saying to each other on social media gives off some very Orwellian vibes in my mind...

thisislife2 1y ago
> "Stricter regulations" like what? For communication platforms (messengers) - the same kind that telecom companies are bound to, for example. For social media platforms - similar to what older media platforms are bound on content, editorial / journalistic format and integrity etc. Both also require new, stricter privacy and data laws. I live in a democracy and I find the idea of BigTech "regulating" itself while also being a bastion of "free speech" to be an oxymoron, especially a foreign one.
- fluoridation 1y ago
  >For communication platforms (messengers) - the same kind that telecom companies are bound to, for example. So, like, maximum response time to outages? That kind of thing? Do you actually understand what you're asking for? Those sorts of regulations exist as consumer protections, because you're paying for a service, so a minimum standard of quality is required. You don't pay for WhatsApp, Telegram, Matrix, etc. If your country tried asking for something unreasonable out of those companies, all it would do is make those companies block your country off. >For social media platforms - similar to what older media platforms are bound on content, editorial / journalistic format and integrity etc. Totally absurd. First, social media platforms are not journalistic outlets. What, because Bloomberg posts videos to YouTube, every YouTuber should abide by the same kinds of standards that Bloomberg abides by? Second, I don't know where you live, but if your country has free speech in its constitution, it doesn't have regulation of journalists. Those things are in direct contradiction. Now, of course there are defamation laws, but other than that, the government in a country with free speech cannot regulate the speech of journalists. Things like journalistic integrity and such are matters of etiquette, not legality. There are no laws that, say, forbid a journalist from revealing his sources; it's just that if he does, no one will trust them again.
  - thisislife2 1y ago
    > Do you actually understand what you're asking for? Those sorts of regulations exist as consumer protections, because you're paying for a service ... Yes, I do understand what I am asking for - these should indeed be paid services (subsidised by the government through a common national communication infrastructure, to make it cheaper for ordinary people). This gives three benefits - (1) strong consumer rights (no grey areas about who owns your data, better privacy, better recourse on poor service, mandated inter-connection between networks etc.), (2) creates a more competitive market (right now, the biggest problem with "free" services are that you need a lot of money, for a very long period, to compete with them, thus giving rich, foreign corporates a natural advantage) and (3) reduces surveillance capitalism and protects national security. > You don't pay for WhatsApp, Telegram, Matrix, etc. We do pay for it with our personal data that is mined to create profiles which is then used to manipulate us with advertisement. This data is also sold to (foreign) intelligence agencies thereby endangering a country's national security. > First, social media platforms are not journalistic outlets. If you speak publicly, to a mass audience, you need to care about what you say, just as newspapers / news channels are obliged to do so. If you create content for a mass audience, you should abide by the content regulation that the television and movies do too. > if your country has free speech in its constitution, it doesn't have regulation of journalists. My country (India) doesn't prescribe absolute free speech for individuals, like the US does (for various reasons, which we indians are comfortable with). Indian courts however uphold a higher threshold for restricting free speech in the media, to prevent governments from abusing their power. By regulation for editors and journalists, I was talking about a different kind of regulation - in the old media (newspapers) once you appointed an editor or a journalist, there is a very high bar to fire them. This kind of job security allowed editors and journalists more freedom to resist editorial interferences from their employees, thus empowering the fourth estate in our democracy. There is also a high restriction to hiring foreigners for such jobs. (This is no longer the case for newer media and we can already see the crap it has become). A similar kind of setup can be enforced for social media reviewers too, ensuring platform owners and algorithm don't control the flow of info on it, and local people (and not foreigners) do.
    - fluoridation 1y ago

fluoridation 1y ago

>you do not know if it is your own citizens talking or some foreign agent with their own vested interest You wouldn't know that if the site was from your own country either. Could you be sure your neighbor is not a foreign spy? >I don't consider regulating social media as "censorship" at all To clarify, you don't consider it censorship because you believe your government would make it more difficult for foreigners alone to use their speech, and never your own countrymen. You're either delusional or adorably naive. Inevitably, censorship will get used against you, either to silence you or to silence speech you would want to hear. Anyone who calls for censorship is a useful idiot.

thisislife2 1y ago
I am just restating my faith in my country's democracy to protect my rights, than any private BigTech or foreign government. You, on the other hand, are deliberately ignoring that foreign media platforms have, and are, used for malicious purposes against a state.
- fluoridation 1y ago
  I'm not ignoring it, I simply don't care. I recognize that misinformation is going to be spread and act accordingly, by fact-checking and suspending judgement. What you want is for a government entity to decide for you which statements are "true" and which are "false" and to be shown only the "true" ones. It's idiotic. Even if the government has your best interest in mind (which it doesn't; at any given time the ruling party is self-interested), outsourcing your critical thinking faculties is not something you should want.