←back to thread

707 points patd | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.744s | source
Show context
Traster ◴[] No.23322571[source]
I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway:

There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-reach and almost unachievable to have both perfect free speech on these platforms and actually run them as a viable business.

But let's lay that aside, those people who make the argument claim to be adhering to an even stronger dedication to free speech. Surely, it's clear here that having the actual head of the US government threatening to shut down private companies for how they choose to manage their platforms is a far more disturbing and direct threat against free speech even in the narrowest sense.

replies(42): >>23322601 #>>23322660 #>>23322889 #>>23322983 #>>23323095 #>>23323271 #>>23325355 #>>23327443 #>>23327459 #>>23327625 #>>23327899 #>>23327986 #>>23328982 #>>23329094 #>>23329143 #>>23329230 #>>23329237 #>>23329375 #>>23329616 #>>23329658 #>>23329911 #>>23330257 #>>23330267 #>>23330422 #>>23330438 #>>23330441 #>>23331115 #>>23331430 #>>23331436 #>>23331462 #>>23331469 #>>23331944 #>>23332090 #>>23332213 #>>23332505 #>>23332858 #>>23332905 #>>23332934 #>>23332983 #>>23333360 #>>23341099 #>>23346876 #
hadtodoit ◴[] No.23329094[source]
If companies are going to self-moderate their platforms then they should not receive any kind of legal protection from user-generated content. I wholly believe companies have every right to dictate what is on their platform but they cannot have it both ways. If you can afford to moderate content you disagree with, you can do so for illegal content as well.

If I own a store and someone injures themselves on the premises I am held liable for that. I did not force that person to enter the store but the benefits of having a store outweighed the risks. Why should internet companies receive special treatment? They should be 100% liable for what happens on their "premises" if they are going to take the risk of allowing user-generated content.

replies(6): >>23329175 #>>23329190 #>>23329219 #>>23329418 #>>23330218 #>>23349070 #
1. bredren ◴[] No.23329219[source]
This presumes equal weight of all content. Some content gets far more attention and thus must face a higher degree of scrutiny. This is the only way to curate at scale.

Apple does this with the App Store, where it is possible to get away with breaking app store rules if the app is not downloaded very often. It is not worth the time and energy for Apple to challenge apps that no one is downloading in the first place.

On twitter, with regard to illegal content it also has to matter the degree. How illegal / and reprehensible is it? How often is this tweet being requested?

replies(1): >>23329410 #
2. hadtodoit ◴[] No.23329410[source]
Twitter has some automated method of determining whether a tweet is NSFW and it is very accurate to the point where I didn't even realize they allowed that content. They can figure out how to filter illegal content as well.
replies(1): >>23331783 #
3. bredren ◴[] No.23331783[source]
I believe this is the basis for conservative opinion on this. The trouble is, even offline there is no universal 'filter' for illegality.

Law enforcement must also work at scale, and focus on illegal behavior that is having the most impact.

When a court finds this power is used improperly, such as the arrest of Stormy Daniels in Columbus, Ohio, there are penalties.

For something like this to stand, I believe conservatives will have to prove major examples conservative bias. Unfortunately, the tweets in question so far will not be great evidence of that.