8 ms·

People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

jgeada 1y ago
I think this might be a misinterpretation of the word "responsible". If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible". Government sets the rules, and if someone fail to comply, there are consequences against those responsible. Government isn't responsible, it is holding them responsible.
- goalieca 1y ago
  > If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. Does the government then setup a ministry of truth? Who gets to decide that?
  - Xylakant 1y ago
    Are you implying that there’s no posts on social media platforms that are plain and verifiably wrong and that any such decision needs to be made by a government created ministry of truth? There’s no middle ground? Maybe such a thing like a court? If I state here plain and as a fact that golieca eats little children for breakfast and slaughters kittens for fun, could @dang not look at both a statement from you and one from me and see if I have sufficient proof?
    - lukan 1y ago
      "If I state here plain and as a fact that golieca eats little children for breakfast and slaughters kittens for fun, could @dang not look at both a statement from you and one from me and see if I have sufficient proof?" Nah, he would just (shadow)ban you. But in general we had that debate long and broad on what truth means with Covid. Who decides what the scientific consensus is for instance. (I don't remember a crystal clear outcome, though). But in case of doubt, we still have courts to decide.
      - Xylakant 1y ago
        > Nah, he would just (shadow)ban you Censorship! There’s a lot of grey areas - statement of fact vs opinion, open scientific consensus, statements about public figures vs. private individuals, … But the post I’m responding to basically says “there is no truth, let’s give up.” and that’s just as false.
  - jonathanstrange 1y ago
    Judges. The question is mainly whether there should be some rules independent of those of the companies that the content must follow, and people who feel treated badly need to get their rights against those rules in a civil lawsuit, or whether more should be allowed first until there is a civil or penal lawsuit that might stop it. (It is already a mixture of both so it's a matter of degree.) I personally prefer an emphasis on the first solution because it's better to combat the widespread lack of civility in social media, which I believe to harm society substantially, but I also understand the people who prefer the second model.
  - tiahura 1y ago
    In most common law countries, juries fill that roll. Currently, in the US, internet companies get a special exemption from the laws that apply to other media companies via the DMCA. If traditional media companies publish libelous material, they get sued. Facebook and Google get a "Case Dismissed" pass. Most people look at the internet and conclude that hasn't worked out very well.
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      It's unclear to me what a good solution would look like. If platforms didn't have those protections, they probably wouldn't be able to exist at all. Any moderation would have to be perfect, or they would be open to lawsuits. And no platform could afford that. It's a tough one.
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      > Most people look at the internet and conclude that hasn't worked out very well. Cite?
      - tiahura 1y ago
        That’s what this survey is.
  - dfxm12 1y ago
    At a minimum, keep in mind, perjury, libel and slander get litigated in courts of law. No ministry of truth is required in these cases.
  - LeonB 1y ago
    A “ministry of truth” would (I assume) be a part of the executive branch of government. Whereas the creation of laws and the interpretation of laws are powers that the executive branch does not have, and are held separately by the legislative and judicial branches. In a, well, y’know “functioning” democracy. Apparently.
  - nemo44x 1y ago
    This is exactaly right. To silence even offensive ideas is to appoint someone as the final arbiter of truth — something history shows to be dangerous. Truth doesn’t need protection — it needs criticism. Censoring ‘offensive’ or ‘sacred’ ideas kills the very process (open debate) that lets society correct errors & find truth, even if it's uncomfortable. Everthing else is dogma.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    The US already has that. What do you think the courts do? People complaining about building a "ministry of truth" in countries with anything resembling a functioning legal system are just as clueless as people who cry about "government death panels" while private insurance already denies people lifesaving medicine right freaking now
- chii 1y ago
  > If a platform lies or spread malicious content but if the platform didnt go verify all content placed by users on it, does it count as "spreading" it? I mean, there's nothing stopping anyone from publishing a book which spreads lies and malicious content - book banning is looked down upon these days. Why are the publishers not asked to be held to this same level? What makes a web platform different?
- philipallstar 1y ago
  > If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible". The platform isn't lying, any more than if I write "1 equals 2" on a letter and send it via the mail system to someone else is the mail system lying.
  - matwood 1y ago
    What if the platform decides that people will send more mail if they piss them off by copying your letter and sending it to everyone in their service area? Is that still just you lying? At what point does the platform become responsible for amplifying what you said? Are you responsible when it's amplified to everyone if all you ever intended was sending it out into the void?
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      Yes, the analogy to the postal service falls apart when discussing one-to-one correspondance. That's more like a DM than a social media. If however some of your junk mail included mass mailings of brochures to join the KKK or some neo-nazi group, I could see why people would want the postal service to crack down on that. That is a fair analogy.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      > Are you responsible when it's amplified to everyone if all you ever intended was sending it out into the void? You didn't send it out into the void.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - oscaracso 1y ago
    Social media platforms do not operate like the mail or telecommunication infrastructure. Suppose that a clique of high-follower verified users on X formed a private discord channel in which they coördinate false but plausible moral panic news events in order to foment spontaneous violent acts against minorities (for added effect, perhaps by pooling their resources into generative AI tools), and that both platforms refused to address this by shutting down the channel, banning the users, or even reducing their reach on the timeline. While there remain reasonable arguments against governing this bad behavior through legislation, it is plain that the social media platforms would be implicated in the negative outcomes of the behavior to a greater degree than a mail carrier.
- matwood 1y ago
  Yeah, the US in particular functions on liability. If changes are made that make companies liable for the externalities from their platforms, they will almost instantly find ways to address the issues.
micromacrofoot 1y ago
I really struggle to understand why these companies think they need to function like governments when it comes to removing content from their platforms. Does it really all boil down to protecting any engagement at all costs? The men running these company live like wannabe kings but have absolutely no backbone when it comes to having a stance about moderating for basic decency and are profiting greatly off of festering trash heaps. Additionally, they're complete cowards in the face of their nihilistic shareholders.
- floundy 1y ago
  Turns out that echo chambers with manufactured consensus are quite profitable.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  > The men running these company live like wannabe kings but have absolutely no backbone when it comes to having a stance about moderating for basic decency and are profiting greatly off of festering trash heaps. The "but" is really throwing me for a loop, because to me it feels like one follows from the other.
- phkahler 1y ago
  >> The men running these company live like wannabe kings but have absolutely no backbone when it comes to having a stance about moderating for basic decency and are profiting greatly off of festering trash heaps. Part of that is they don't want responsibility. The phone companies in the US are classified as "common carriers" which in part means they are not held responsible for misuse (drug deals, terrorist plots, whatever, discussed on their system). The flip side is that the are not allowed to discriminate - their job is to complete calls. Online "platforms" want no responsibility for the content people post. They want to be common carriers, but that would also prevent them from discriminating (even algorithmically) what people see. Since they aren't properly classified/regulated yet they're playing a game trying to moderate content while also claiming no responsibility for content. It does not make sense to let them have it both ways.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
tycho-newman 1y ago
We only tolerate totalitarianism in the private sector!
exabrial 1y ago
I’d like governments to instead enforce monopoly laws and the FTC to sue for crappy business practices. I don’t want them playing speech police.
- LeonB 1y ago
  Yes, absolutely. The survey could say, “given that the existence of corporate monopolies demonstrates weak and non functional governments, should governments a) cede more power to the monopolies, or b) pretend to claw power back from the monopolies?”
brap 1y ago
Unpopular opinion, but what about our own responsibility to choose better platforms?
- artyom 1y ago
  Second this. The article reads as a false dichotomy of choosing a "lesser evil" master while remaining a slave. Vote with your engagement (?)
- Xylakant 1y ago
  What if someone posts slander and libelous statements on a platform that you do not frequent? What choice do you have? What recourse do you have if someone posts something along this proud OpenAI demo with your face on truth.social? https://bsky.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:j5fbnzh57rn7xz65yjc36gxb/post/3m23ob342h22a https://bsky.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:j5fb...
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    There are legal avenues in many jurisdictions for slander or libel. Ultimately, though, who cares what someone posts about you and how could we expect some arbiter to decide exactly what is okay to post, especially when the concern is potential libel?
    - Xylakant 1y ago
      Yep, libel laws are a rule that gets enforced by the government and the platforms should be liable to follow the laws. But the post I’m responding to asserts that people should change platforms- which is not a solution that addresses the issue at hand.
floundy 1y ago
Actually, no, reasonable people do not want either platforms or governments to moderate content. Who defines what "problematic content" is?
- Xylakant 1y ago
  You are posting on a platform that has a moderation policy and takes active measures to to moderate away problematic content. The guidelines are here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and they clearly state what content is off limits.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    We're posting on a platform that has a moderation policy defined by the private entity hosting the service, not the government. YC is free to censor on their own platform, the only issue is when the government is involved in censoring speech.
    - Xylakant 1y ago
      The post I’m responding to explicitly states that platforms should not moderate content.
  - floundy 1y ago
    How is this a "gotcha" when I'm on the internet I'm being forced to use? I pick the most agreeable platforms. I like that HN filters out politics, sports, and celebrities, it's more like a themed forum than an open board. HN doesn't deem these topics as "problematic", simply as off-topic. Anyway my point was "problematic content" is often used as a buzzword by censorship happy people, and ends up being synonymous with "something I disagree with." We have just literally seen the real life consequences of pushing for censorship — that it will eventually be used against speech that one agrees with — and nobody quite seems to care.
    - Xylakant 1y ago
tiahura 1y ago
Two takeaways: 1. As per headline, rejection of state censorship. 2. Platforms should be responsible for user posts. "Q17D. In your opinion, should each of the following platforms be held responsible or not responsible for showing potentially false information that users post? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000." Around the world, appx. 70% said yes. The rub, of course, is coming up with a framework. The poll suggests that the DMCA approach of no duty is widely unpopular. However, strict liability would ensure that that these industries go away, and even a reasonableness standard seems like a headache.
gmuslera 1y ago
There is a problem of agency here. Assuming that we are talking about platform of user-generated content, should the users be punished by what they post? The kind of punishment can do the government is different from what a platform can do, and somewhat they want to feel free to express themselves. This are factors taken into account by users at making decisions. In the other hand, what the platform does (through algorithms, weights, etc) at selecting, prioritizing and making visible content by users and users themselves is something happening at platform level. There the government may have something to do. And here we are talking about the platform decisions. There is a middle ground on coordinating/playing with the algorithms to make your content visible by users or groups that control in a way or another many users accounts. There might be some government and platform involvement in this case.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  > should the users be punished by what they post? What kind of punishment exactly? If governments punish users for content, assuming the content isn't clearly illegal, that's government censorship and may be a free speech violation depending on jurisdiction. Platforms censoring or prioritizing content is a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform. I'm not sure that's punishment at all, people don't have to post there and there's no use of force or detention being threatened.
  - chii 1y ago
    > a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly, so a platform that turned itself into a public square (and extracting rents from doing so) means they get to control a narrative displayed in public (presumably suitable to their agenda). And there's no secondary public square due to the network effect.
    - philipkglass 1y ago
      what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly Which one platform for user generated content do you think holds the natural monopoly? I agree that network effects limit competition, absent government intervention, but among my acquaintances people are using: - Discord - Snapchat - Instagram - TikTok - Bluesky - YouTube - Twitter/X - Reddit I think that enforcing anti-trust would be enough to keep any one platform or corporate owner from monopolizing public discourse.
bradley13 1y ago
Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. As for falsehoods: some people will be mistaken, some people will lie, and sometimes sarcasm will be misunderstood. Why should anyone be liable? It is on each individual to inform themselves, and to decide what to believe and what to disregard. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." It doesn't say "if your opinion is approved by the government". It doesn't say "if your opinion is correct". It makes no exceptions whatsoever, and that is what we need to strive for.
- kode95 1y ago
  > Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. There are only a few European countries that jail people for wrongspeak, and I can't think of a single one of those countries whose population in general is in favor of such laws.
- gwd 1y ago
  > It doesn't say "if your opinion is correct". Opinions cannot be right or wrong. > It makes no exceptions whatsoever, and that is what we need to strive for. It certainly does. See libel / defamation / perjury / false representation / fraud / false advertising / trademark infringement.
  - xienze 1y ago
    > Opinions cannot be right or wrong. I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion, someone has certainly made a judgement call that your opinion is wrong!
    - gwd 1y ago
      > I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion Can you give an example of someone in a modern democracy jailed for their "opinion"? To wit, are the examples you're thinking of "statement of opinion", "statement of fact", "pejorative insult", or "incitement"? Saying "I think <public figure> is an idiot" is an opinion. "The earth is flat" or "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions; neither is, "Kick out all the <insert pejorative here>." And yeah, in North Korea you'll absolutely be jailed for expressing some opinions. That may make them illegal, but it doesn't make them no longer opinions.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ddmma 1y ago
If disinformation would treated as copyrighted content then world would be better place.
- kingstnap 1y ago
  Facts are public domain and can't be copyrighted (you can only argue your creative expression of them, ex in a textbook, is yours). But I suppose that wouldn't apply to disinformation. So your made up bullshit is yours to keep!
  - LeonB 1y ago
    Interesting point. It’s a kind of reframing (or consequence of) the bullshit asymmetry principle.
  - ddmma 1y ago
    I was referring to the fact that disinformation is helping platforms to make traffic and attract profits, is not seen from a negative impact on society. Copyright content is causing losses therefore is taken seriously in al sort or verifications.
ecshafer 1y ago
This survey is too vague to be worthwhile. Sure some of these are scary how many people say "yes", but people say yes all of the time to vague sounding pleasantries. When they say "responsible" say specific actions. Should people be arrested for what they post on social media when its an opinion? Should platforms automatically analyze all messages and automatically remove messages that it deems not truthful? Should the platform be liable in court for falsehoods? People will answer very differently to specifics than vagueness.
- LeonB 1y ago
  Absolutely. They hand-wave tremendously complex questions, in such a way that the respondent is free to interpret them any way you wish. A similar survey question might be: > I am thinking of a number. Is it, a) too high or b) too low?
jmyeet 1y ago
In the US, this all stems from Section 230 (of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) that provided a safe harbor for companies for user-generated content. There are some requirements for this like a process for legal takedowns. Section 230 is generally a good thing as it was (and is) prohibitively expensive if not outright impossible to monitor every post and every comment. But what changed in the last two decades or so is the newsfeed as well as other forms of recommendation (eg suggested videos on Youtube). Colloquially we tend to lump all of these together as "the algorithm". Tech companies have very succcessfully spread the propaganda that even with "the algorithm" they're still somehow "content neutral". If certain topics are pushed to more users because ragebait = engagement then that's just "the algorithm". But who programmed the algorithm? Why? What were the explicit goals? What did and didn't ship to arrive at that behavior? The truth is that "the algirthm" reflects the wishes of the leaders and shareholders of the company. As such, for purposes of Section 230, it's arguable that such platforms are no longer content neutral. So what we have in the US is really the worst of both worlds. Private companies are responsible for moderation but they kowtow to the administration to reflect the content the administration wants to push or suppress. Make no mistake, the only reason Tiktok was banned and is now being sold is because the government doesn't have the same control they have over FB, IG or Twitter. So a survey of what people want here is kind of meaningless because people just don't understand the question.
- tiahura 1y ago
  So a survey of what people want here is kind of meaningless because people just don't understand the question. I think they understand perfectly well. They look at an internet where internet companies aren't held responsible, conclude it's largely corrosive, and prefer a different approach. I'm not sure it's important that they don't understand the elements of a libel claim or that internet companies get a special get of jail free card that traditional media doesn't.
DrScientist 1y ago
I think it's a bit more nuanced that this. Ultimately authors should be held responsible for content - the governments role here is setting the laws, and funding the law enforcement mechanisms ( police and courts etc ), and the platform's role is to enable enforcement ( doing takedowns or enabling tracing of perpetrators ). Obviously one of the challenges here is the platforms are transnational, and the laws are national - but that's the just a cost of doing business. However this doesn't absolve the platforms from responsibility for content if they are involved in promoting content. If a platform actively promotes content - then in my view they shift from a common carrier to a publisher and thus all the normal publisher responsibilities apply. Pretending that it's not possible to be technical responsible for platform amplification is a not the answer. You can't create something that you are responsible for, that creates harm and then claim it's not your problem because you can't fix it.
andrewstuart 1y ago
“Think tank”.
markstos 1y ago
Moderation is a strength of the fediverse, because it is decentralized, with many moderators making possibly conflicting rules about relatively smaller amounts of content. Moderators can block individual posts, accounts, or entire instances if they have objectionable alternate rules. Don't like the moderation on some instance? Move to another.
- warkdarrior 1y ago
  Exactly. And moderators need to be responsible and liable for the content they allow through on their instances.
cptskippy 1y ago
Responsibility is nice, accountability is nicer. Having to testify before Congress or pay a sub percentage point of annual profits in fines is not accountability.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  It is accountability, but not sufficient to be a significant deterrent.
FarMcKon 1y ago
This is a false dichotomy presented to people. By framing this as 'Giant government, or giant business?" you are going to get crap answers. None of these are one size fits all solutions, and there should be a mix. We have a working patch-work of laws in physical space, for a reason. It allow flexibility, and adjustments as we go, as the world changes. We should extended that to virtual space as well. Age / Content Labeling and opt-in/ opt-out for some content. Outright ban on other kinds of content. A similar "I sue when you abuse my content" for copyright, impersonation, etc. One size does not fit all, and is not how the real world works. Online shouldn't work much differently.
em-bee 1y ago
the conundrum is that both sides have a bad track record in moderating content. governments in the past have used their power to silence political opponents, and businesses are silencing critical voices and undesirable content because it hurts their bottom line. neither is acceptable. the US made a good start by disallowing government censorship completely. europe could do the same, perhaps with a carve out for outright hate speech, and obvious falsehoods like holocaust denial. but these exceptions need to be very clearly defined, which currently is not the case. what is missing is a restriction on private businesses, to only allow them to moderate content that is obviously illegal or age restricted, or, for topical forums, off topic, for the latter they must make clear which content is on topic.
incomingpain 1y ago
Here in Canada, it's sad to watch what's happening in the UK. In the UK(like OP), they are arresting people for thought crimes. An unexpected consequence of Brexit was the loss of free speech protection of Article 10. Opinion polling has labour in steady steep decline. Given the unprecedented attack on freedom, presumptive decimation in the next election is guaranteed at this point. There's no future for the labour party beyond 2029, absurd that they would do this to their party unless they had a plan. You obviously don't play your cards down like they have if you're intending to have a fair election 2029; or one at all.
txrx0000 1y ago
Ideally, individuals are the ones responsible for moderating content. All filters should be implemented client-side. A person can have all the freedom to decide what they see, but not what anyone else sees. The problem with group moderation is that it will form disparate, isolated groups that get larger over time. This gradually reduces the effectiveness of democracy and destroys social cohesion. The people in the same group see other groups as more and more evil as the groups get larger, so they don't talk to eachother as much. The effort required to talk to people in a different group becomes larger as the groups get larger, so fewer and fewer individuals are capable of dialogue, until eventually, there are just two echo chambers that absolutely hate eachother. And what follows is either violence or oppression, or both, because the conflict has reached the government level. There used to be a cap on practical group size before the Internet (except in rare cases, those become authoritarian states), so this went unnoticed in democratic societies. But now there isn't. We ought to consciously realize that the base unit of a democratic society is an individual, and create policies that enable decisions at the individual level. We ought to talk to people that we think are evil. And let them talk, too.
epgui 1y ago
To be honest I’m not sure what’s worse. I think I’d rather moderation be a public service than a profit-driven activity. (Bias: I’m lucky to live in a country that has a relatively good government, so I find it “easy” to imagine that it could work.)
SilentM68 1y ago
The problem is that the people who own the platforms, are biased in one direction or the other, and hence influence the platforms to manipulate the platform users. There is no such thing as an unbiased platform or government since the platform owners also influence all governments, schools, and organizations world-wide. I understand it is a difficult concept, but the sooner people realize that they live in a biased society, based on self-interest, the faster they can figure out who to trust or not trust. Sadly, it has taken me more than 40 years to figure this out :(
Cameri 1y ago
We want protocols, not platforms.

I think this might be a misinterpretation of the word "responsible". If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible". Government sets the rules, and if someone fail to comply, there are consequences against those responsible. Government isn't responsible, it is holding them responsible.

goalieca 1y ago
> If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. Does the government then setup a ministry of truth? Who gets to decide that?
- Xylakant 1y ago
  Are you implying that there’s no posts on social media platforms that are plain and verifiably wrong and that any such decision needs to be made by a government created ministry of truth? There’s no middle ground? Maybe such a thing like a court? If I state here plain and as a fact that golieca eats little children for breakfast and slaughters kittens for fun, could @dang not look at both a statement from you and one from me and see if I have sufficient proof?
  - lukan 1y ago
    "If I state here plain and as a fact that golieca eats little children for breakfast and slaughters kittens for fun, could @dang not look at both a statement from you and one from me and see if I have sufficient proof?" Nah, he would just (shadow)ban you. But in general we had that debate long and broad on what truth means with Covid. Who decides what the scientific consensus is for instance. (I don't remember a crystal clear outcome, though). But in case of doubt, we still have courts to decide.
    - Xylakant 1y ago
      > Nah, he would just (shadow)ban you Censorship! There’s a lot of grey areas - statement of fact vs opinion, open scientific consensus, statements about public figures vs. private individuals, … But the post I’m responding to basically says “there is no truth, let’s give up.” and that’s just as false.
- jonathanstrange 1y ago
  Judges. The question is mainly whether there should be some rules independent of those of the companies that the content must follow, and people who feel treated badly need to get their rights against those rules in a civil lawsuit, or whether more should be allowed first until there is a civil or penal lawsuit that might stop it. (It is already a mixture of both so it's a matter of degree.) I personally prefer an emphasis on the first solution because it's better to combat the widespread lack of civility in social media, which I believe to harm society substantially, but I also understand the people who prefer the second model.
- tiahura 1y ago
  In most common law countries, juries fill that roll. Currently, in the US, internet companies get a special exemption from the laws that apply to other media companies via the DMCA. If traditional media companies publish libelous material, they get sued. Facebook and Google get a "Case Dismissed" pass. Most people look at the internet and conclude that hasn't worked out very well.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    It's unclear to me what a good solution would look like. If platforms didn't have those protections, they probably wouldn't be able to exist at all. Any moderation would have to be perfect, or they would be open to lawsuits. And no platform could afford that. It's a tough one.
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    > Most people look at the internet and conclude that hasn't worked out very well. Cite?
    - tiahura 1y ago
      That’s what this survey is.
- dfxm12 1y ago
  At a minimum, keep in mind, perjury, libel and slander get litigated in courts of law. No ministry of truth is required in these cases.
- LeonB 1y ago
  A “ministry of truth” would (I assume) be a part of the executive branch of government. Whereas the creation of laws and the interpretation of laws are powers that the executive branch does not have, and are held separately by the legislative and judicial branches. In a, well, y’know “functioning” democracy. Apparently.
- nemo44x 1y ago
  This is exactaly right. To silence even offensive ideas is to appoint someone as the final arbiter of truth — something history shows to be dangerous. Truth doesn’t need protection — it needs criticism. Censoring ‘offensive’ or ‘sacred’ ideas kills the very process (open debate) that lets society correct errors & find truth, even if it's uncomfortable. Everthing else is dogma.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  The US already has that. What do you think the courts do? People complaining about building a "ministry of truth" in countries with anything resembling a functioning legal system are just as clueless as people who cry about "government death panels" while private insurance already denies people lifesaving medicine right freaking now
chii 1y ago
> If a platform lies or spread malicious content but if the platform didnt go verify all content placed by users on it, does it count as "spreading" it? I mean, there's nothing stopping anyone from publishing a book which spreads lies and malicious content - book banning is looked down upon these days. Why are the publishers not asked to be held to this same level? What makes a web platform different?
philipallstar 1y ago
> If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible". The platform isn't lying, any more than if I write "1 equals 2" on a letter and send it via the mail system to someone else is the mail system lying.
- matwood 1y ago
  What if the platform decides that people will send more mail if they piss them off by copying your letter and sending it to everyone in their service area? Is that still just you lying? At what point does the platform become responsible for amplifying what you said? Are you responsible when it's amplified to everyone if all you ever intended was sending it out into the void?
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    Yes, the analogy to the postal service falls apart when discussing one-to-one correspondance. That's more like a DM than a social media. If however some of your junk mail included mass mailings of brochures to join the KKK or some neo-nazi group, I could see why people would want the postal service to crack down on that. That is a fair analogy.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    > Are you responsible when it's amplified to everyone if all you ever intended was sending it out into the void? You didn't send it out into the void.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- oscaracso 1y ago
  Social media platforms do not operate like the mail or telecommunication infrastructure. Suppose that a clique of high-follower verified users on X formed a private discord channel in which they coördinate false but plausible moral panic news events in order to foment spontaneous violent acts against minorities (for added effect, perhaps by pooling their resources into generative AI tools), and that both platforms refused to address this by shutting down the channel, banning the users, or even reducing their reach on the timeline. While there remain reasonable arguments against governing this bad behavior through legislation, it is plain that the social media platforms would be implicated in the negative outcomes of the behavior to a greater degree than a mail carrier.
matwood 1y ago
Yeah, the US in particular functions on liability. If changes are made that make companies liable for the externalities from their platforms, they will almost instantly find ways to address the issues.

micromacrofoot 1y ago

I really struggle to understand why these companies think they need to function like governments when it comes to removing content from their platforms. Does it really all boil down to protecting any engagement at all costs? The men running these company live like wannabe kings but have absolutely no backbone when it comes to having a stance about moderating for basic decency and are profiting greatly off of festering trash heaps. Additionally, they're complete cowards in the face of their nihilistic shareholders.

floundy 1y ago
Turns out that echo chambers with manufactured consensus are quite profitable.
ModernMech 1y ago
> The men running these company live like wannabe kings but have absolutely no backbone when it comes to having a stance about moderating for basic decency and are profiting greatly off of festering trash heaps. The "but" is really throwing me for a loop, because to me it feels like one follows from the other.
phkahler 1y ago
>> The men running these company live like wannabe kings but have absolutely no backbone when it comes to having a stance about moderating for basic decency and are profiting greatly off of festering trash heaps. Part of that is they don't want responsibility. The phone companies in the US are classified as "common carriers" which in part means they are not held responsible for misuse (drug deals, terrorist plots, whatever, discussed on their system). The flip side is that the are not allowed to discriminate - their job is to complete calls. Online "platforms" want no responsibility for the content people post. They want to be common carriers, but that would also prevent them from discriminating (even algorithmically) what people see. Since they aren't properly classified/regulated yet they're playing a game trying to moderate content while also claiming no responsibility for content. It does not make sense to let them have it both ways.
cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]

tycho-newman 1y ago

We only tolerate totalitarianism in the private sector!

exabrial 1y ago

I’d like governments to instead enforce monopoly laws and the FTC to sue for crappy business practices. I don’t want them playing speech police.

LeonB 1y ago
Yes, absolutely. The survey could say, “given that the existence of corporate monopolies demonstrates weak and non functional governments, should governments a) cede more power to the monopolies, or b) pretend to claw power back from the monopolies?”

brap 1y ago

Unpopular opinion, but what about our own responsibility to choose better platforms?

artyom 1y ago
Second this. The article reads as a false dichotomy of choosing a "lesser evil" master while remaining a slave. Vote with your engagement (?)
Xylakant 1y ago
What if someone posts slander and libelous statements on a platform that you do not frequent? What choice do you have? What recourse do you have if someone posts something along this proud OpenAI demo with your face on truth.social? https://bsky.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:j5fbnzh57rn7xz65yjc36gxb/post/3m23ob342h22a https://bsky.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:j5fb...
- _heimdall 1y ago
  There are legal avenues in many jurisdictions for slander or libel. Ultimately, though, who cares what someone posts about you and how could we expect some arbiter to decide exactly what is okay to post, especially when the concern is potential libel?
  - Xylakant 1y ago
    Yep, libel laws are a rule that gets enforced by the government and the platforms should be liable to follow the laws. But the post I’m responding to asserts that people should change platforms- which is not a solution that addresses the issue at hand.

floundy 1y ago

Actually, no, reasonable people do not want either platforms or governments to moderate content. Who defines what "problematic content" is?

Xylakant 1y ago
You are posting on a platform that has a moderation policy and takes active measures to to moderate away problematic content. The guidelines are here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and they clearly state what content is off limits.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  We're posting on a platform that has a moderation policy defined by the private entity hosting the service, not the government. YC is free to censor on their own platform, the only issue is when the government is involved in censoring speech.
  - Xylakant 1y ago
    The post I’m responding to explicitly states that platforms should not moderate content.
- floundy 1y ago
  How is this a "gotcha" when I'm on the internet I'm being forced to use? I pick the most agreeable platforms. I like that HN filters out politics, sports, and celebrities, it's more like a themed forum than an open board. HN doesn't deem these topics as "problematic", simply as off-topic. Anyway my point was "problematic content" is often used as a buzzword by censorship happy people, and ends up being synonymous with "something I disagree with." We have just literally seen the real life consequences of pushing for censorship — that it will eventually be used against speech that one agrees with — and nobody quite seems to care.
  - Xylakant 1y ago

tiahura 1y ago

Two takeaways: 1. As per headline, rejection of state censorship. 2. Platforms should be responsible for user posts. "Q17D. In your opinion, should each of the following platforms be held responsible or not responsible for showing potentially false information that users post? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000." Around the world, appx. 70% said yes. The rub, of course, is coming up with a framework. The poll suggests that the DMCA approach of no duty is widely unpopular. However, strict liability would ensure that that these industries go away, and even a reasonableness standard seems like a headache.

gmuslera 1y ago

There is a problem of agency here. Assuming that we are talking about platform of user-generated content, should the users be punished by what they post? The kind of punishment can do the government is different from what a platform can do, and somewhat they want to feel free to express themselves. This are factors taken into account by users at making decisions. In the other hand, what the platform does (through algorithms, weights, etc) at selecting, prioritizing and making visible content by users and users themselves is something happening at platform level. There the government may have something to do. And here we are talking about the platform decisions. There is a middle ground on coordinating/playing with the algorithms to make your content visible by users or groups that control in a way or another many users accounts. There might be some government and platform involvement in this case.

_heimdall 1y ago
> should the users be punished by what they post? What kind of punishment exactly? If governments punish users for content, assuming the content isn't clearly illegal, that's government censorship and may be a free speech violation depending on jurisdiction. Platforms censoring or prioritizing content is a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform. I'm not sure that's punishment at all, people don't have to post there and there's no use of force or detention being threatened.
- chii 1y ago
  > a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly, so a platform that turned itself into a public square (and extracting rents from doing so) means they get to control a narrative displayed in public (presumably suitable to their agenda). And there's no secondary public square due to the network effect.
  - philipkglass 1y ago
    what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly Which one platform for user generated content do you think holds the natural monopoly? I agree that network effects limit competition, absent government intervention, but among my acquaintances people are using: - Discord - Snapchat - Instagram - TikTok - Bluesky - YouTube - Twitter/X - Reddit I think that enforcing anti-trust would be enough to keep any one platform or corporate owner from monopolizing public discourse.

bradley13 1y ago

Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. As for falsehoods: some people will be mistaken, some people will lie, and sometimes sarcasm will be misunderstood. Why should anyone be liable? It is on each individual to inform themselves, and to decide what to believe and what to disregard. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." It doesn't say "if your opinion is approved by the government". It doesn't say "if your opinion is correct". It makes no exceptions whatsoever, and that is what we need to strive for.

kode95 1y ago
> Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. There are only a few European countries that jail people for wrongspeak, and I can't think of a single one of those countries whose population in general is in favor of such laws.
gwd 1y ago
> It doesn't say "if your opinion is correct". Opinions cannot be right or wrong. > It makes no exceptions whatsoever, and that is what we need to strive for. It certainly does. See libel / defamation / perjury / false representation / fraud / false advertising / trademark infringement.
- xienze 1y ago
  > Opinions cannot be right or wrong. I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion, someone has certainly made a judgement call that your opinion is wrong!
  - gwd 1y ago
    > I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion Can you give an example of someone in a modern democracy jailed for their "opinion"? To wit, are the examples you're thinking of "statement of opinion", "statement of fact", "pejorative insult", or "incitement"? Saying "I think <public figure> is an idiot" is an opinion. "The earth is flat" or "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions; neither is, "Kick out all the <insert pejorative here>." And yeah, in North Korea you'll absolutely be jailed for expressing some opinions. That may make them illegal, but it doesn't make them no longer opinions.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ddmma 1y ago

If disinformation would treated as copyrighted content then world would be better place.

kingstnap 1y ago
Facts are public domain and can't be copyrighted (you can only argue your creative expression of them, ex in a textbook, is yours). But I suppose that wouldn't apply to disinformation. So your made up bullshit is yours to keep!
- LeonB 1y ago
  Interesting point. It’s a kind of reframing (or consequence of) the bullshit asymmetry principle.
- ddmma 1y ago
  I was referring to the fact that disinformation is helping platforms to make traffic and attract profits, is not seen from a negative impact on society. Copyright content is causing losses therefore is taken seriously in al sort or verifications.

ecshafer 1y ago

This survey is too vague to be worthwhile. Sure some of these are scary how many people say "yes", but people say yes all of the time to vague sounding pleasantries. When they say "responsible" say specific actions. Should people be arrested for what they post on social media when its an opinion? Should platforms automatically analyze all messages and automatically remove messages that it deems not truthful? Should the platform be liable in court for falsehoods? People will answer very differently to specifics than vagueness.

LeonB 1y ago
Absolutely. They hand-wave tremendously complex questions, in such a way that the respondent is free to interpret them any way you wish. A similar survey question might be: > I am thinking of a number. Is it, a) too high or b) too low?

jmyeet 1y ago

In the US, this all stems from Section 230 (of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) that provided a safe harbor for companies for user-generated content. There are some requirements for this like a process for legal takedowns. Section 230 is generally a good thing as it was (and is) prohibitively expensive if not outright impossible to monitor every post and every comment. But what changed in the last two decades or so is the newsfeed as well as other forms of recommendation (eg suggested videos on Youtube). Colloquially we tend to lump all of these together as "the algorithm". Tech companies have very succcessfully spread the propaganda that even with "the algorithm" they're still somehow "content neutral". If certain topics are pushed to more users because ragebait = engagement then that's just "the algorithm". But who programmed the algorithm? Why? What were the explicit goals? What did and didn't ship to arrive at that behavior? The truth is that "the algirthm" reflects the wishes of the leaders and shareholders of the company. As such, for purposes of Section 230, it's arguable that such platforms are no longer content neutral. So what we have in the US is really the worst of both worlds. Private companies are responsible for moderation but they kowtow to the administration to reflect the content the administration wants to push or suppress. Make no mistake, the only reason Tiktok was banned and is now being sold is because the government doesn't have the same control they have over FB, IG or Twitter. So a survey of what people want here is kind of meaningless because people just don't understand the question.

tiahura 1y ago
So a survey of what people want here is kind of meaningless because people just don't understand the question. I think they understand perfectly well. They look at an internet where internet companies aren't held responsible, conclude it's largely corrosive, and prefer a different approach. I'm not sure it's important that they don't understand the elements of a libel claim or that internet companies get a special get of jail free card that traditional media doesn't.

DrScientist 1y ago

I think it's a bit more nuanced that this. Ultimately authors should be held responsible for content - the governments role here is setting the laws, and funding the law enforcement mechanisms ( police and courts etc ), and the platform's role is to enable enforcement ( doing takedowns or enabling tracing of perpetrators ). Obviously one of the challenges here is the platforms are transnational, and the laws are national - but that's the just a cost of doing business. However this doesn't absolve the platforms from responsibility for content if they are involved in promoting content. If a platform actively promotes content - then in my view they shift from a common carrier to a publisher and thus all the normal publisher responsibilities apply. Pretending that it's not possible to be technical responsible for platform amplification is a not the answer. You can't create something that you are responsible for, that creates harm and then claim it's not your problem because you can't fix it.

andrewstuart 1y ago

“Think tank”.

markstos 1y ago

Moderation is a strength of the fediverse, because it is decentralized, with many moderators making possibly conflicting rules about relatively smaller amounts of content. Moderators can block individual posts, accounts, or entire instances if they have objectionable alternate rules. Don't like the moderation on some instance? Move to another.

warkdarrior 1y ago
Exactly. And moderators need to be responsible and liable for the content they allow through on their instances.

cptskippy 1y ago

Responsibility is nice, accountability is nicer. Having to testify before Congress or pay a sub percentage point of annual profits in fines is not accountability.

IAmBroom 1y ago
It is accountability, but not sufficient to be a significant deterrent.

FarMcKon 1y ago

This is a false dichotomy presented to people. By framing this as 'Giant government, or giant business?" you are going to get crap answers. None of these are one size fits all solutions, and there should be a mix. We have a working patch-work of laws in physical space, for a reason. It allow flexibility, and adjustments as we go, as the world changes. We should extended that to virtual space as well. Age / Content Labeling and opt-in/ opt-out for some content. Outright ban on other kinds of content. A similar "I sue when you abuse my content" for copyright, impersonation, etc. One size does not fit all, and is not how the real world works. Online shouldn't work much differently.

em-bee 1y ago

the conundrum is that both sides have a bad track record in moderating content. governments in the past have used their power to silence political opponents, and businesses are silencing critical voices and undesirable content because it hurts their bottom line. neither is acceptable. the US made a good start by disallowing government censorship completely. europe could do the same, perhaps with a carve out for outright hate speech, and obvious falsehoods like holocaust denial. but these exceptions need to be very clearly defined, which currently is not the case. what is missing is a restriction on private businesses, to only allow them to moderate content that is obviously illegal or age restricted, or, for topical forums, off topic, for the latter they must make clear which content is on topic.

incomingpain 1y ago

Here in Canada, it's sad to watch what's happening in the UK. In the UK(like OP), they are arresting people for thought crimes. An unexpected consequence of Brexit was the loss of free speech protection of Article 10. Opinion polling has labour in steady steep decline. Given the unprecedented attack on freedom, presumptive decimation in the next election is guaranteed at this point. There's no future for the labour party beyond 2029, absurd that they would do this to their party unless they had a plan. You obviously don't play your cards down like they have if you're intending to have a fair election 2029; or one at all.

txrx0000 1y ago

Ideally, individuals are the ones responsible for moderating content. All filters should be implemented client-side. A person can have all the freedom to decide what they see, but not what anyone else sees. The problem with group moderation is that it will form disparate, isolated groups that get larger over time. This gradually reduces the effectiveness of democracy and destroys social cohesion. The people in the same group see other groups as more and more evil as the groups get larger, so they don't talk to eachother as much. The effort required to talk to people in a different group becomes larger as the groups get larger, so fewer and fewer individuals are capable of dialogue, until eventually, there are just two echo chambers that absolutely hate eachother. And what follows is either violence or oppression, or both, because the conflict has reached the government level. There used to be a cap on practical group size before the Internet (except in rare cases, those become authoritarian states), so this went unnoticed in democratic societies. But now there isn't. We ought to consciously realize that the base unit of a democratic society is an individual, and create policies that enable decisions at the individual level. We ought to talk to people that we think are evil. And let them talk, too.

epgui 1y ago

To be honest I’m not sure what’s worse. I think I’d rather moderation be a public service than a profit-driven activity. (Bias: I’m lucky to live in a country that has a relatively good government, so I find it “easy” to imagine that it could work.)

SilentM68 1y ago

The problem is that the people who own the platforms, are biased in one direction or the other, and hence influence the platforms to manipulate the platform users. There is no such thing as an unbiased platform or government since the platform owners also influence all governments, schools, and organizations world-wide. I understand it is a difficult concept, but the sooner people realize that they live in a biased society, based on self-interest, the faster they can figure out who to trust or not trust. Sadly, it has taken me more than 40 years to figure this out :(

Cameri 1y ago

We want protocols, not platforms.