People don’t seem to understand, censorship is a double edged sword. You never know who will be in charge years from now and will abuse those very same good intentioned laws & we end up a police state.
If you want to remove hate speech at internet scales, you are going to be creating lists of bad words and acting on it.
That also means that tomorrow, that same tech can be used to remove healthy speech and only amplify the worst kind of content that influences people.
We’re still going to use those bots though. The only thing I do more of is study what creates unhealthy speech in the first place.
Right, right. That’s working out well for Parlor.
It’s not everyone else’s fault that nobody else wants to be around these people. If you go to the pub and start picking fights you’ll be avoided and thrown out pretty quickly. This is the same: they went off and created their own app, their behaviour got worse, and now nobody else wants to deal with them. What is unreasonable here?
It’s the water department who wants to turn off the hose. Or some strained analogy like that.
They leave, but make a new pool by filling up the back of the ute, this spills everywhere when they drive, ruins the suspension and is a safety hazard, nobody else is surprised when they get pulled over by the cops.
We've definitely strained the limits of the analogy here hahaha, but the point is that we're not obliged to have them as customers, and as another comments put it, they're not entitled to success.
>_everyone_
Businesses have incentives to reduce risks. It's not necessarily that they disagree with what they say, it's just that they made a calculated decision to not have them as consumers.
It's not because everyone decides not to have you as consumers that it is a good thing for society to let them not have you (same thing happened for gays, black people, etc. yet we decided to protect those from businesses).
Nor does the First Amendment guarantee that exercising your freedom of speech will work out well for you. Circulation, reaction, lack of an overbearing editor---none of these are entitlements under our laws.
To be a bit glib, we’re not talking about illegal government censorship, we’re talking about evil corporate censorship.
It’s 100% perfectly legal for Apple to choose which apps it will sell on its store. Hey, sometimes I even like the decisions they make!
But no longer can anyone legitimately respond to “XYZ got kicked off this platform” with “then XYZ should build their own platform” because obviously we’ve seen many times over now that doesn’t actually work.
They just come after the new platform too.
So we are left with either admitting we’re ok with corporations censoring political speech, even though it’s illegal for governments to do that, or trying to figure out what the limits should be of corporate censorship of political speech that we can live with.
For what it’s worth, I think the key metric here to consider is the level of competition in the specific market where the censorship is occurring.
The problem is most of these markets are more like duopolies if not monopolies, and the limits on corporate censorship of political speech probably should be higher the closer you get to a monopoly.
Some censorship is of course essential. But back to the point, when we see censorship that is objectionable to a reasonable number of people... “just build your own” isn’t a valid response.
As for other networks, I've used several that aren't big household names. They work fine. Some actually do "social" better, in my opinion. Some boast self-hosting and censorship-resistant features. None of them are popular. But many are cheap enough to run more or less indefinitely, given their small size.
I think "just build your own" is a perfectly valid response, since nobody's entitled to any of what a platform represents. If you send a newspaper an editorial and they refuse it, "start your own publication" or "print it up as a pamphlet" are just fine. So is just "no", without any free tips on next steps or alternatives. Nothing is owed. Nothing's delivered.
Back to the laws, there are others to keep in mind here. Not just as they sit on the books, but how they play out in practice. Nobody wants to be dealing with subpoenas, court orders, and lawsuits, even lawsuits they can probably get dismissed early on under 230, all the time. Nobody wants to be dealing with media scandals. That's what happens when crime starts happening on your servers. The costs are so high, and involvement so unpleasant, that most experienced operators tune their terms, policies, and algorithms to sweep very broadly, accepting a lot of false positives to avoid false negatives that eat up all their money and time.
From a certain point of view, I'm sure it seems Facebook and especially Twitter are seizing on illegality as a pretense for political ends. Taking that was a factor as a given, there's almost certainly some additional element of simple self-defense and cost-saving at work here. Even if you start a new platform that doesn't share their presumed political bias, the other factors will stay in play.
Unwillingness to face that explains many of the woes of specifically right-allied platforms in the last ten years. If you set yourself as "the alternative" for people the major platforms are happy to be rid of, you can end up with a user base with a really high percentage of people creating problems that are problems no matter what your politics happen to be.
Race is a protected class per the law. Parler is not
Race and the other legally protected classes have been the biggest factors in discrimination in this country - the biggest ways in which US society has violated its creed "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal".
Political party has not, nor has "users of a computer application", nor the intersection of those manifested in Parler.
But sure, if you algebraically treat race and political party as equivalents without any historical context, the comparison is "in principle" the same, but that is deeply flawed as it requires the conscious exclusion of historical context.
If group A can publish an app following the guidelines and group B is banned while adhering to the same guidelines, that’s clearly discrimination of group B.
But if group A and B both are stopped from breaking guidelines equally then how is it discrimination?
Guidelines could be written to be exclusive (no apps can use Swahili!) but that’s not what’s going on here is it? Guidelines are neutral.
People who think there is a ban on Trump supporters or Conservatives must be seeing something I don’t.
If that won’t work, yeah, constitutional amendment.
Although there definitely exist a number of regulations that effectively restrict corporate speech - e.g. anti-terrorist funding legislation - so probably there’s other ways to do it as well.
I'm aware of "trust busting" in an earlier time, but not nationalizations, except, predominantly, in time of war.
You're over private property? Okay, me too.
But let's handle these requests in the order they arrived, that's fair isn't it? We'll get to social media right after we nationalize health care and energy.
What has broken to cause that abhorrent content to exist (e.g. “shoot them all and let god decide what to do with them”)
Why have they lost the ability of civilised communication?
If that can be fixed or self-policed, the calls for censorship evaporate.
Question ... does 4chan have an app on the apple store?
Private communities can moderate. Public utilities (Social Media) should not, but currently do. Social Media companies call themselves platforms while acting like publishers. They do this while using engagement-driving algorithms that intentionally stir up dissent because [0]negativity increases engagement.
[0] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JAMR-05-...