Regarding this:
> And all I am arguing is that social media should be held to the same standards as traditional media
If I were to slander someone on HN, HN should be held responsible? It seems unworkable in practice, since HN is an automated system, more akin to the post office or a public bulletin than a traditional publisher.
(Though, obviously, it's sort of in the middle, since they will moderate particularly obnoxious comments.)
But if you hold them liable, it would be unreasonable legal risk to assume to allow the comment section to continue to exist, no?
I think it’s possible that Facebook and Twitter, etc. could not exist under that threat of legal liability. A few years ago I would have said that was unbearable, but now I’m not so sure. The flat earthers and anti-vaxxers of the world worry me. I don’t think they should be prohibited from speech by any stretch, but Facebook and Twitter engagement algorithms lead to echo chambers that amplify radicalism and research has shown how that directly leads to an increasingly angry, divided, polarized citizenry.
It’s one thing if we are angry and divided about truth. It’s another if entire cohorts of the population no longer believe in objective reality because the Facebook algorithm serves them a never ending stream of anti-vax untruth. And much worse the hate groups that lead to “doxing” and worse.
I don’t know what the appropriate answer is, but I don’t think that the status quo is trending in the direction of a better future for humanity, and I think it’s good for us to be asking tough questions and possibly reconsidering whether some of the newer technologies like social media are, on aggregate, worth the harm they cause.
First, I _do_ believe in freedom of speech, in the sense that any individual should be allowed to say what they think and that should be largely free of legal ramifications.
However I do think there are limits to this, and specifically I don't think that you should be allowed to blatantly lie without any risk of consequences. This is the standard that publishers are held to, they can basically publish whatever they want so long as they can demonstrate reasonable evidence that it is true.
On the other hand, there is a deeply toxic "thought censorship" going on right now, which I cannot describe as well as this article does: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i...
I couldn't be more opposed to this "thought police" movement that is growing largely on the left.
But to preserve a reasonable middle ground between "unlimited free speech" which includes blatant deception with no consequences and the Orwellian thought police, we do have to have some standards of what is acceptable and what can get you in trouble. To me that standard is truth supported by evidence.
And all I am arguing is that social media should be held to the same standards as traditional media, that when their claims are unsubstantiated they can face legal consequences.