3 ms·

I hope it's quite the opposite, since this can lead to innovation as we figure out how to depolarize social media platforms or how to develop more politically n

by pms 11mo ago

I hope it's quite the opposite, since this can lead to innovation as we figure out how to depolarize social media platforms or how to develop more politically neutral online media.

mc32 11mo ago
I agree on the need for depolarization (go back to timelines and get rid of recommendation engines) but once you cede control of content to government even if it's for things people would agree on like "nuke that misinformation" you will end up being a mouthpiece for the government in power -whoever it be. Look at how "innocent" embeds wholly shaped the messaging on Covid and how they sidelined all dissent (lots of people of renown and stature within relevant disciplines)
- pms 11mo ago
  That's a great point. I agree that's a danger, but please note DSA doesn't cede the control of content to government, but rather it creates an institution of (national) Digital Service Coordinators (DSCs) that decide whether a researcher's access to data is well-reasoned. In most cases that institution will be in a different country (the country of company's EU's HQs) than the researcher. That said, there could be malicious players involved, e.g., researchers and respective DSCs secretly recruited by a government to influence elections. This, however, sounds implausible, since in principle both the DSCs and researchers are independent from national governments. Also, we can have depolarized recommendation algorithms. We don't need to go back all the way to timelines.
  - thesmtsolver 11mo ago
    That's quite optimistic given EU's track record in practice. E.g., DieselGate. Europe was more impacted but US caught Volkswagen cheating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal#European_actions,_2015–2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal#E...
    - pms 11mo ago
      It's also quite optimistic to think that the industry will self-regulate, as the recent history of Boeing 737 MAX shows...
      - mc32 11mo ago
        It’s also optimistic to think the gov will do what’s good for the people as exemplified by Chernobyl. There is no “good” answer. Each has its pros and cons.
        pms 11mo ago
        Yes, which is why we need to balance who has power, and facilitate independent research, rather than to give away to either industry or government.
      - thesmtsolver 11mo ago
        No one is saying that the industry will self-regulate. There is a right amount of regulation and all evidence points that the EU is over that limit. The US is below (probably) but closer.
        pms 11mo ago
        That's not clear to me at all. Would you mind elaborating?
        Workaccount2 11mo ago
        Europe has a borderline shrinking economy and failed to become a player in the advanced technologies driving the world economy today. It's because they created an extremely hostile business environment, leading to founders going to the US to start their business there instead. So now Europe is a continent full of people using American made software, running on American and Chinese made hardware, going on American social media to talk about how Europe is totally fine because they only work 9 months out of the year and don't allow young people to become billionaires.
  - terminalshort 11mo ago
    This reads to me like: "please note DSA doesn't cede the control of content to government, but rather it creates a more obfuscated and shady government that pretends not to be a government, but is actually 10x worse and completely devoid of democratic control, and then it cedes control to that."
terminalshort 11mo ago
What you want is censorship. Using words like "depolarize" to hide it doesn't fool anyone. The polarization comes not from the platform, but from its users.
- xyzal 11mo ago
  Censorship from an American perspective? Maybe. We used to have similar views on free speech up until WW2, the rise of propaganda and methods of mass manipulation. Since then e.g. threatening speech is beyond the line. But don't worry. You will learn your lesson soon. Remember, your leader says you don't have to go vote anymore.
  - jack_tripper 11mo ago
    >We used to have similar views on free speech up until WW2 WW2 in Europe and the fascism and nazism that came to power and lead to it, wasn't due to European countries having too much free speech, but the contrary, they had not enough to act as a blowoff valve, so the people lashed out by electing stronger autocrats opposing the status quo to kick out the previous autocrats as revenge to the establishment. Same mindset that got Trump elected twice. It's not like pre-Hitler and pre-Mussolini Germans and Italians were living in a golden age of freedom and prosperity, and then suddenly out of the blue with no warning, Hitler and Mussolini just randomly came to power for no reason because their people had too much free speech and one day decided to throw it all away for shits and giggles. And today, history in Europe is repeating itself again, with unpopular governments failing their voters, trying to prevent the rise of right wing with censorship, which in turn further radicalizes the people against those in power, leading the rise of the right wing just like in pre-WW2. Nothing was learned, we're doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes every 100 years or so.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
  - terminalshort 11mo ago
    You Europeans are the ones who saw the Nazis and decided to take a page out of their playbook, not us. Saying you are censoring "to prevent Nazis" means nothing to me because I've seen the people you call "Nazis". You are just another person who pretends to favor democracy, but in reality only means if those damn voters vote for who you tell them to.

by pms 11mo ago

I hope it's quite the opposite, since this can lead to innovation as we figure out how to depolarize social media platforms or how to develop more politically neutral online media.

mc32 11mo ago

I agree on the need for depolarization (go back to timelines and get rid of recommendation engines) but once you cede control of content to government even if it's for things people would agree on like "nuke that misinformation" you will end up being a mouthpiece for the government in power -whoever it be. Look at how "innocent" embeds wholly shaped the messaging on Covid and how they sidelined all dissent (lots of people of renown and stature within relevant disciplines)

pms 11mo ago
That's a great point. I agree that's a danger, but please note DSA doesn't cede the control of content to government, but rather it creates an institution of (national) Digital Service Coordinators (DSCs) that decide whether a researcher's access to data is well-reasoned. In most cases that institution will be in a different country (the country of company's EU's HQs) than the researcher. That said, there could be malicious players involved, e.g., researchers and respective DSCs secretly recruited by a government to influence elections. This, however, sounds implausible, since in principle both the DSCs and researchers are independent from national governments. Also, we can have depolarized recommendation algorithms. We don't need to go back all the way to timelines.
- thesmtsolver 11mo ago
  That's quite optimistic given EU's track record in practice. E.g., DieselGate. Europe was more impacted but US caught Volkswagen cheating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal#European_actions,_2015–2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal#E...
  - pms 11mo ago
    It's also quite optimistic to think that the industry will self-regulate, as the recent history of Boeing 737 MAX shows...
    - mc32 11mo ago
      It’s also optimistic to think the gov will do what’s good for the people as exemplified by Chernobyl. There is no “good” answer. Each has its pros and cons.
      - pms 11mo ago
        Yes, which is why we need to balance who has power, and facilitate independent research, rather than to give away to either industry or government.
    - thesmtsolver 11mo ago
      No one is saying that the industry will self-regulate. There is a right amount of regulation and all evidence points that the EU is over that limit. The US is below (probably) but closer.
      - pms 11mo ago
        That's not clear to me at all. Would you mind elaborating?
        Workaccount2 11mo ago
        Europe has a borderline shrinking economy and failed to become a player in the advanced technologies driving the world economy today. It's because they created an extremely hostile business environment, leading to founders going to the US to start their business there instead. So now Europe is a continent full of people using American made software, running on American and Chinese made hardware, going on American social media to talk about how Europe is totally fine because they only work 9 months out of the year and don't allow young people to become billionaires.
- terminalshort 11mo ago
  This reads to me like: "please note DSA doesn't cede the control of content to government, but rather it creates a more obfuscated and shady government that pretends not to be a government, but is actually 10x worse and completely devoid of democratic control, and then it cedes control to that."

terminalshort 11mo ago

What you want is censorship. Using words like "depolarize" to hide it doesn't fool anyone. The polarization comes not from the platform, but from its users.

xyzal 11mo ago
Censorship from an American perspective? Maybe. We used to have similar views on free speech up until WW2, the rise of propaganda and methods of mass manipulation. Since then e.g. threatening speech is beyond the line. But don't worry. You will learn your lesson soon. Remember, your leader says you don't have to go vote anymore.
- jack_tripper 11mo ago
  >We used to have similar views on free speech up until WW2 WW2 in Europe and the fascism and nazism that came to power and lead to it, wasn't due to European countries having too much free speech, but the contrary, they had not enough to act as a blowoff valve, so the people lashed out by electing stronger autocrats opposing the status quo to kick out the previous autocrats as revenge to the establishment. Same mindset that got Trump elected twice. It's not like pre-Hitler and pre-Mussolini Germans and Italians were living in a golden age of freedom and prosperity, and then suddenly out of the blue with no warning, Hitler and Mussolini just randomly came to power for no reason because their people had too much free speech and one day decided to throw it all away for shits and giggles. And today, history in Europe is repeating itself again, with unpopular governments failing their voters, trying to prevent the rise of right wing with censorship, which in turn further radicalizes the people against those in power, leading the rise of the right wing just like in pre-WW2. Nothing was learned, we're doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes every 100 years or so.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- terminalshort 11mo ago
  You Europeans are the ones who saw the Nazis and decided to take a page out of their playbook, not us. Saying you are censoring "to prevent Nazis" means nothing to me because I've seen the people you call "Nazis". You are just another person who pretends to favor democracy, but in reality only means if those damn voters vote for who you tell them to.