←back to thread

707 points patd | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
threatofrain ◴[] No.23323271[source]
I feel that because web tech advanced more quickly than much of society, a vacuum of power developed and Google was forced to step in. If Google had its way, it wouldn't police any content and it would illegally host HBO shows like Game of Thrones -- when you try to hold them responsible, Google would pass off all burden to the offending individual. That's how YouTube used to run.

Other industries have things like the FCC or the FDA where companies can say, "Look, we did our due diligence, the FDA approved our drug."

replies(2): >>23329259 #>>23329621 #
1. dynamite-ready ◴[] No.23329259[source]
Do you think digital media needs a state run mediator? I think it's probably time.

We've become quite protective of the data that's collected by digital products for fear of a concentration of power.

But then we all see the internet as a great 'leveller', and we don't want to disturb that balance.

The likes of the FDA (or your local equivalent) work at a certain scale... Perhaps civilly agreed constraints can be applied to companies who have managed to cultivate a userbase of a certain size.

Like a 'tax' of a kind on the amount of 'trash' you're allowed to ignore, before the police physically ensure you and your users can't abuse state infrastructure for whatever your nefarious purpose is.

replies(1): >>23332483 #
2. intended ◴[] No.23332483[source]
This is an argument that is being made - an FDA for information.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/18/a-toxic-w...

One of the people making the argument is Nate Matias, the guy behind Civil servant, which is essentially the first open testing system to see the impact of content moderation rules on users -

https://www.fastcompany.com/3068556/reminder-you-can-manipul...