SM is clearly different from that and very much still in flux, and overly regulating it would be more of a burden than an advantage. Some amount of regulation may help though, especially designed to encourage diversity of ideas.
But mostly I wanted to counter the meme that "it's not censorship if it's a private company". Yes it is, when you have only one twitter and a handful of SM companies in total. It's not the ownership that matters, it's the ubiquity and the effect.
They all require physical infrastructure to every house, to provide service capacity. As such, we don't want 7 different companies for each, laying 7 different sewer systems and 7 different electric grids.
When the service is virtual, the same infrastructure limits don't materialize in the same way. We don't need to run new ISP lines to bring on a new platform.
So while ISP are certainly more like classic utilities, websites and social platforms just aren't.
>But mostly I wanted to counter the meme that "it's not censorship if it's a private company". Yes it is, when you have only one twitter and a handful of SM companies in total. It's not the ownership that matters, it's the ubiquity and the effect.
Corporate censorship isn't a "free speech" problem. SM companies just aren't enough like a utility, they are not actually required to function in society (unlike electricity, and running water).
Did you learn nothing from the battle over NetNeutrality?
I think decentralization is better way than building one big ISP controlled by the government. I live in a place (Utah), that has a non profit owned fiber infrastructure and leases it out to different ISPs, where you can even buy the dark fiber yourself for like $2500. I can choose from 10-15 ISPs with highly competitive prices and service. The ISPs can have whatever policies they want but the free market will take care of them pretty fast.
Exposure to diversity of ideas is not a problem on social media. What drowns out most ideas is actually threat of cyberbullying and internet mobs, being drowned out by bots, and algorithmic sorting that prioritizes controversial content over moderate voices. Only the last one is related to moderation/editorial choices by the company and it’s rarely framed as a free speech issue.
I wonder if limited Section 512 reform is the answer [1].
Remove it for social media platforms over a certain size that sell ads. Create a safe harbour if they form an independent appeals commission, like the one Facebook did; but with teeth on enforcement, tightly-scoped but binding rulemaking powers, and rules about how its members are chosen. Company can flag and ban. Users can appeal. Commission can go to the courts to enforce its will or force discovery. (Maybe throw in a couple commission members elected by users, I don’t know.)
[1] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
I disagree. The whole social media industry is rotten and needs a dose of... something... to bring it back to sanity. Strict limits on user data collection and algorithmic "feeds" would be a good start IMHO. Otherwise the same patterns repeat themselves, where the most rage-inducing content gets spread the furthest.
I dont know where the line is, but we should agree that a line is needed.
People are saying a line is not necessary. That is at the core, the problem. We need to agree that these companies -by accident or otherwise- have become a common good, similar to a "utility"
Take a similar example: at some point a company stops being a company...and becomes a monopoly. Where is that line? We dont know. However its important we recognize private companies operating as monopolies are not in the best interests of society.
Private companies operating as common goods providers should be subject to additional rules. That is what we should agree on. Then let others define what that is.
If you, engaged user of a tech site, a developers forum, have no idea what that should look like, then why would the "something" from politicians work out better?
It has never been an issue before because the means of communication have always been limited but modern electronic communication has changed all that and it's clear that we can't exist in this wild west phase anymore.
SM had eroded the trust in institutions and between people and groups. It had put all of us in bubbles just to sell ads. Informational and cognitive hygiene must be recognized and taught to everyone so people can defend themselves and take care of what they hold dear and true.
That’s not the dynamic occurring today, social media is available in even the most rural setting, albeit in a reduced form to support low bandwidth.
Do we really want to allow Facebook and Twitter monopoly status and then treat them as defacto government entities? Will that result in better services? I do not think so.
As we’ve seen with TikTok’s rise, competition within the space leads to better outcomes, not treating social media companies as “utilities”. Social media companies are not in any way comparable to a sewer system, an electric grid, or a phone line network.