Supreme Court Hears Landmark Cases That Could Upend What We See on Social Media (cnn.com) 282
The US Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Monday in two cases that could dramatically reshape social media, weighing whether states such as Texas and Florida should have the power to control what posts platforms can remove from their services. From a report: The high-stakes battle gives the nation's highest court an enormous say in how millions of Americans get their news and information, as well as whether sites such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok should be able to make their own decisions about how to moderate spam, hate speech and election misinformation. At issue are laws passed by the two states that prohibit online platforms from removing or demoting user content that expresses viewpoints -- legislation both states say is necessary to prevent censorship of conservative users.
More than a dozen Republican attorneys general have argued to the court that social media should be treated like traditional utilities such as the landline telephone network. The tech industry, meanwhile, argues that social media companies have First Amendment rights to make editorial decisions about what to show. That makes them more akin to newspapers or cable companies, opponents of the states say. The case could lead to a significant rethinking of First Amendment principles, according to legal experts. A ruling in favor of the states could weaken or reverse decades of precedent against "compelled speech," which protects private individuals from government speech mandates, and have far-reaching consequences beyond social media. A defeat for social media companies seems unlikely, but it would instantly transform their business models, according to Blair Levin, an industry analyst at the market research firm New Street Research.
More than a dozen Republican attorneys general have argued to the court that social media should be treated like traditional utilities such as the landline telephone network. The tech industry, meanwhile, argues that social media companies have First Amendment rights to make editorial decisions about what to show. That makes them more akin to newspapers or cable companies, opponents of the states say. The case could lead to a significant rethinking of First Amendment principles, according to legal experts. A ruling in favor of the states could weaken or reverse decades of precedent against "compelled speech," which protects private individuals from government speech mandates, and have far-reaching consequences beyond social media. A defeat for social media companies seems unlikely, but it would instantly transform their business models, according to Blair Levin, an industry analyst at the market research firm New Street Research.
No one more fragile (Score:4, Insightful)
Than republicans. Help government I don't like what I see on social media! Do something!
Re:No one more fragile (Score:4, Insightful)
Republicans, standing for smaller invasive government; unless it involves the use of genitals or what you read on the Internet.
Small enough to drown in a bathtub (Score:2, Informative)
It won't work centralized governments are basically inevitable because they're just too useful. So all you're going to get is a national and Federal fascist government as opposed to the local fascist government they're all pining for.
The thing you got to understand is that a small minority of hyper-excited people willing to use violence c
Re: (Score:2)
instead to create strong Democratic institutions backed by education and extensive training in critical thinking
I have yet to see evidence of the level of critical thinking in government is better than the general population. They are elected on popularity, not critical thinking skills, honesty and critical thinking will not make you popular. Even lawyers are not trained in critical thinking they are trained in persuasion and manipulating the law to suit their client. If it was critical thinking it wouldn't matter how may republicans/democrats there are in the supreme court (the best of the best lawyers) they would c
Re: (Score:2)
The original reason for S230 was that it enabled sites to host user-created content without placing an unreasonable burden on the hosts to moderate the content. As AI technology has progressed, that's not really the case anymore. A hypothetical post-S230 internet is never going to be a free-for-all, you'll just have some AI algorithm deciding whether your post complies with the service's TOS, and good luck appealing it to an actual human when you get falsely flagged.
Also, kiss anonymity goodbye, because w
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather be held accountable for my speech than not be allowed to speak at all.
But that's a false dichotomy. There's no reason we can't have content filtered for crap and let the rest through without government strong arming the social media sites down to the level of telling them to ban certain people or delete certain messages. Which we know happened.
Re: Small enough to drown in a bathtub (Score:5, Interesting)
" we want a government that does what the Preamble says its supopsed to do: secure the blessing of liberty to OURSELVES and OUR posterity.
That does not mean someone across the ocean, or on the other-side of the Mexico boarder"
If those people have unrest then it affects us. You need to look past the end of your prick to find all of the issues that involve you.
It's also worth noting that the people showing up here as refugees are uniformly coming from nations we've tampered with - we've interfered in their elections, assassinated their leaders, bombed their civilians, forced them into unfavorable trade agreements through the above means and others... You're happy to have us shit all over the world, but not to have us take care of the consequences. You are basically endorsing the same kind of behavior we rebelled against when we founded this nation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It also means a government that isnt so massive with its tentacles everywhere and in possession of so many levers and tricks it can just end run around the bill of rights any time it wants.
I agree. Why is the government concerned with what genitals a person has or who they wish to marry? Why are they concerned over school library books or when girls get their first period?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm amazed how your post when freedom for the people and government butting out to a proposal that would almost certainly result in your rights and free speech severely limited. Your post advocates for shooting the messenger rather than the author of the message. If you're going to do that, you'll find they become very selective on whose messages they send, far more so than they already are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure absolutely nothing would happen to an employee who wrote "all lives matter" on the white board under the officially posted "black lives matter" poster from HR.
On another episode of "shit happens to us lefties too", my partner didn't initially realize the negative connotations associated with that phrase. On its surface, it actually does seem like a more inclusive way of saying we're all equally deserving of not falling victim to prejudiced views. He ended up being promptly schooled that it began as a retort to "Black Lives Matter" and thus is actually a racist dog whistle.
I'm less mad at the fact that leftists got bent out of shape over something that was meant
Re:No one more fragile (Score:4, Interesting)
It's smaller government for things that might impact profits and earnings of the elite.
It's bigger government to ensure the proles stay in their place.
Your legislation on climate means our profits will be smaller - that's why we need smaller government! Or they're preventing someone from getting that $50M bonus to their earnings for the year! Smaller government!
But oh, we can't have women getting abortions, because reasons! We can't dare to spend a few dollars so the poors can get vital Internet access because they may actually learn things and be a part of society! And we certainly cannot let people "dislike" our posts into oblivion because what we say is the absolute truth!
Re: (Score:2)
All parties want government to do what they want, and not what they disagree with.
All parties want what they agree with to be allowed on the internet and stop what they don't.
But oh, we can't have women getting abortions, because reasons!
"Reasons" is trivializing it a bit isn't it, they believe it is murder so should not be allowed. Now you may not agree that a an embryo is a life that needs to be protected, but the point at which it becomes human is rather arbitrary, the Romans for example would commit infanticide, how many people remember their first few years? How d
Re: No one more fragile (Score:3)
""Reasons" is trivializing it a bit isn't it, they believe it is murder so should not be allowed"
The majority of people who oppose abortion support the death penalty (over 60%) and the death penalty is murder, period: it is the premeditated killing of another person that is not necessary for defense. The idea that people opposing abortion are opposing it because they think it is murder is not entirely untrue, but it IS more false than true. Over half of them just want to decide who lives and who dies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Reasons" is trivializing it a bit isn't it, they believe it is murder so should not be allowed.
Why should murder not be allowed?
This is a serious question. Government's job is not to decide or enforce morality, it's to ensure society isn't unlivable. It's God's job to decide and/or enforce morality, and if you believe in the Christian God you believe that He will enact judgment in the end. That's not government's job.
So does it, in fact, make sense to ban murder, not because it's immoral but because it makes society a bad place to live?
Clearly it does, in the way we normally think of "murder".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Something along the lines using the existing 230 clause in the laws.
If a company allows for user posts freely (except for outright criminal content like CP), without use of algorithms, etc....they they are protected by the 230 provisions as they are today. Basically codifying that type set up to be common carrier type businesses like the phone company.
IF, the company wants to shape conversation, intervene for points of view, use algorithms that suppress some content and favor other
Re: (Score:3)
If a company allows for user posts freely (except for outright criminal content like CP), without use of algorithms, etc....they they are protected by the 230 provisions as they are today. Basically codifying that type set up to be common carrier type businesses like the phone company. IF, the company wants to shape conversation, intervene for points of view, use algorithms that suppress some content and favor others...then those should lose the 230 protections and then they will be more or less exactly like editorial media like newspapers, etc. (Much like they claim they are).
Works both ways of course. Libs could take over Truth Social and nothing Trump could do about it unless they too give up section 230 and then accept the liability that comes with it.
Re:No one more fragile (Score:4, Insightful)
Speech free of government interference.
Except here we have a case over a law that inserts government control, via legislation, in the business of private companies. The KGB takeover of the GOP is almost complete.
At the private corporate level? A huge increase of user activity as people went at each other full blast 24/7.
I'd counter that most people actually want echo chambers. Also advertisers, which represent most of the revenue for social media companies, don't want people going after each other full blast. They also don't want to be on a site with Nazis or ISIS or whoever works for Putin these days. That is the free market at work, and the free market says advertisers > nazis.
More traffic -> more ad views -> higher stock prices -> 401k's increase in value.
Like Twitter under Musk? Ostensibly more free speech and worth perhaps a quarter of what he bought it for.
You think anything socially positive is happening on these sites?
Not much, but without some control there will be nothing at all. Think how fun /. would be without moderation, that seems to be what your are advocating.
Re: (Score:3)
Just permit an exception which permits censorship in line with federal rules on public decency over the airwaves. That allows for a standard which isn't controlled by the carrier.
What about advertising spam? Off topic posts? Ascii swastikas? Don't think "decency" rules cover that.
Re:No one more fragile (Score:5)
These laws from Texas and Florida are simply an attempt by people who know that they are wrong to force their viewpoints on others. No social media censors any point of view and I doubt you will find even one case. What they refuse to carry is professionally-produced misinformation campaigns. They might do this partly due to their own political leanings. But it's also a matter of business. Who is going to use these platforms if they are nothing but a deluge of racism and vaccine falsehoods?
The local Panera has a bulletin board where local non-profits can post community information. Are they not allowed to chose which announcements they carry? Do you really think they would be able to continue to host those billboards if they were required to let fringe groups put up large posters?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No one more fragile (Score:4)
If they censor anything (other than illegal content), then the platform becomes liable for user comments.
Plenty of not illegal content can completely and utterly destroy your site.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's hard to believe that Drudge Report would tell the truth, but it's very predictable that an AC would spin it on /. if they did.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Help government I don't like what I see on social media! Do something!
Sad you didn't even read the summary.
Because the literal opposite is going on. The States are imposing legislations that PREVENT REMOVAL of content, so you get to see it in all its glory, no matter how much it offends Facebook and Google et al.
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing someone to say something they disagree with is infringing their right to speech.
Re:No one more fragile (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting how the left always blames the right for doing the things they are doing.
Actually, it's more like the left is doing something the right wing is usually okay with (in this case, telling social media businesses they should have autonomy to run their services how they please), and the right wing is responding with "no, not like that!"
Now if Meta was instead involved in the oil biz and just had a huge spill, the political tables would be turned. The left would be screaming for more regulation, and the right would be going "drill, baby, drill!"
Somebody's got mod points (Score:2)
Nowadays everyone is Fragile (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nowadays everyone is Fragile (Score:5, Interesting)
The republicans invented cancel culture. How quickly history forgets the Dixie Chicks being blacklisted overnight for disagreeing with George Bush and the Iraq war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:No one more fragile (Score:5, Insightful)
Who up-modded you? Did people just see you say something derogatory about Republicans and decide you made a valid point? Your statement is literally the opposite of what this case is about, they are looking at laws that prohibit media sites from censoring posts not laws asking for the right to censor posts as you are implying.
Re:No one more fragile (Score:4, Informative)
they are looking at laws that prohibit media sites from censoring posts not laws asking for the right to censor posts as you are implying.
Forcing someone to say something they disagree with is infringing their speech.
Re:No one more fragile (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems settled to me (Score:3, Interesting)
Conservatives already proved that both the original intent of the internet and good old fashioned capitalism still works when a social media service "deplatforms" you. You can start your own competing service, as Trump did [truthsocial.com], or just buy them out as Musk did. [twitter.com]
In fact, this case now seems like it has the potential to bite them in the ass, since if Truth Social or X (formerly Twitter) tried to silence a left-leaning politician, they could now claim that the right-wing social media site is violating their rights. My, how the turntables have turned, and I think I've heard this record before. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter, this is just feel good legislation that's win-win in an election cycle. If they win, hooray for the voting dirt. If they lose, it's just more proof that the evil federal government is woke and has too much power.
Of course if they win, blue states absolutely will be using this power to censor to put the neo-nazi's back in their hole and Trump will effectively have no voice at all. I might personally enjoy those consequences, but the price is far too high.
Re: Seems settled to me (Score:2)
Our current understanding of the First Amendment is much more expansive than 100 years ago, when you could be prosecuted for protesting the draft. Let alone 200+ years ago, when the Alien and Sedition acts were signed by Jefferson.
Right now you can give police the middle finger while downloading Long Dong Silver's Greatest Wads. The former undermines the authority of the state, while the latter might reduce the supply of newborns over the long term.
In conclusion, neither the original public meaning of t
Re: (Score:2)
Alien and Sedition acts were signed by Jefferson.
Jefferson wasn't president, John Adams was, and they were used to target Jefferson supporters. So the partisan wars are nothing new. As an aside neither is the Supreme Court being a political weapon. The Federalists created courts as a political base before Jefferson was inaugurated after defeating Adams. I don't think this is really a partisan issue. We all think the other guys are lying. The reality here is that the tech companies want to exercise control over the content posted but they want immunity f
Re: Seems settled to me (Score:2)
(But thanks for correcting re Alien and Sedition, I'd been giving Jefferson an unearned demerit for years.)
Re: Seems settled to me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives already proved that both the original intent of the internet and good old fashioned capitalism still works when a social media service "deplatforms" you. You can start your own competing service, as Trump did [truthsocial.com], or just buy them out as Musk did. [twitter.com]
Ah so you only have to be a billionaire to have your free speech... I guess we're all set then, nothing to see here, everything working as the founders intended.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've almost grasped the concept of the difference between "free as in speech" versus "free as in beer".
Or why even though there's a second amendment, the sporting goods store still had the audacity to actually charge me for a firearm. Imagine that!
Re: (Score:2)
I do look forward to hearing Bernie Sander's posts on Truth Social.
Nobody has to bake your cake (Score:5, Insightful)
nobody has to host your take
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So we don't have to bake the cake ?
Cool, tell Colorado.
Re:Yes and no (Score:4, Funny)
You didn't read the summary much less the original legislation.
You just saw "Republican" and lost your shit.
Amazing lack of context here (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Amazing lack of context here (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden campaign: Hey twitter, those pictures of my son's dick fall under your revenge porn policy. Can you remove them?
Twitter: Yes they do, we'll remove them
Conservatives: This is an outrage! We have a god given right to gaze at that huge meaty cock.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I’m not watching an hour long video edited by a former soviet columnist.
Re: (Score:3)
Matt Taibbi did a crap job of analyzing the Twitter Files.
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/... [techdirt.com]
"As we keep showing, Matt makes very sloppy errors at every turn, doesn't understand the stuff he has found, and is confused about some fairly basic concepts.
"The errors that Hasan highlights matter a lot. A key one is Taibbi's claim that the Election Integrity Partnership flagged 22 million tweets for Twitter to take down in partnership with the government. This is flat out wrong. The EIP, which was focused on studyi
Re: (Score:3)
But it wasn't "a few things wrong": it was pretty much everything wrong. And, yes, that does mean that his work on this topic is worthless.
Try not to look through the lens of your biases and you might get a more accurate picture.
Hypocritical Tech Companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, companies are claiming a first amendment right to show what they want on their own websites. They claim it'd be government infringement on their rights if we impose any requirements guaranteeing free speech for users. Companies now claim the right to display what they want on their own websites!
As usual, it looks like companies want it both ways, whichever benefits them the most.
(And, is it just me or is it weird as hell that it's the Republicans fighting for free speech today? Free speech used to be a progressive, liberal Democratic topic. It's certainly not just the Republicans that are getting silenced by the tech companies.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As usual, it looks like companies want it both ways, whichever benefits them the most.
No, they want it both ways because an online platform doesn't really fit neatly into either the categories of communications provider or publisher. Perhaps it actually is logical that since they fall somewhere in between, they should have unique rights which fit their specific role.
I ran my own dial-up BBS back in the day. I paid for the computer, the software, and the phone line. You're going to seriously sit here and make the argument that I don't have the right to exercise some control over the conten
Re: (Score:2)
I can't watch the system 24/7 and that would've placed an unreasonable burden on me.
Wait what? In what way is it unreasonable to expect you to not PUBLISH content that maybe libelous, or criminal incitement, violating copyright etc.
You are free to publish and express yourself you are not required too! You were certainly not required to publish anything from someone else.
In literally ANY other context you left-tards would be arguing that if basic compliance costs make a business unprofitable to operate well that's just to bad we live in a society. Hey I bet certain manufactures could sell a
Re: (Score:2)
In literally ANY other context you left-tards would be arguing that if basic compliance costs make a business unprofitable to operate well that's just to bad we live in a society.
The compliance required in a pre-S230 online world was that the users were subsequently liable for the content they posted. I think you missed that part. Every user of my free service had to prove their phone number was in fact legitimate, in order to create an account. I didn't really have a big problem with people misbehaving, because nobody was truly anonymous to the SysOp.
Now, as to your remark that services should only be provided by businesses with the resources to do so, that's kind of where we're
Re: (Score:2)
This is an interesting framing; I enjoyed reading it. I would submit the following....
I ran my own dial-up BBS back in the day. I paid for the computer, the software, and the phone line. You're going to seriously sit here and make the argument that I don't have the right to exercise some control over the content users are contributing to the service, when I'm the one who paid for and is maintaining it?
I think the huge difference here is that the BBS was *only* censored by you, and it was less-public than Facebook or Twitter.
The difference between your BBS and what Twitter and Facebook do is that they implement an algorithm to determine what users see. It's not simply an uncurated list of all of the content creators a user subscribes to, it's 'tweaked' and 'optimized' behind the scenes, with no clear ability for users to
Re: (Score:2)
I think the huge difference here is that the BBS was *only* censored by you, and it was less-public than Facebook or Twitter.
I suppose it depends on how you look at the issue. For example, the EU certainly does factor size into their social media regulations, with the logic that smaller competitors would be subject to less restrictions in order to stimulate competition. That at least acknowledges that treating these companies as "free speech gatekeepers" wouldn't be necessary if they hadn't sucked up all the air in the room.
Ideally, I feel an internet with multiple platforms run how their operators please is superior to one whe
Re: (Score:2)
Compelled speech like pronouns? The major problem is that under the law you only get shielded from liability if you do not censor your users. However big tech now wants to be able to editorialize content while not maintaining the liabilities that come with being a news outlet with editors.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Republicans aren't fighting for free speech, they are fighting for compelled speech. And no, it's not just you, all sorts of Republicans are too stupid to understand this.
If you think a company has "speech", and that text on a screen that someone else typed out is "compelling" that company to speak. Seems to me that you're really twisting the definition of a platform to suit your own needs because you like the idea of deplatforming people you feel are your enemies, or "too stupid" as you put it.
I don't think companies should be forced to feature any particular user, but that's completely different than the issue of whether they should be allowed to shout into the void like
Re: (Score:2)
More than Republicans are getting censored (Score:3)
"Can't have it both ways" is the core argument (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't simultaneously argue "We're immune from being prosecuted for taking down protected speech because we're just a middleman, - treat us like a Common Carrier" and "We have First Amendment Rights as a company to promote or suppress the viewpoints according to our opinions".
You can't say you're claiming immunity because you treat everyone fairly, and then argue that you also have the right to treat one viewpoint differently than another.
Re: (Score:3)
It might sound like a crazy concept, but we have a whole assortment of laws unique to automobiles because we realized that despite the superficial similarities to a horse carriage, they're not really the same thing. Online social media companies aren't communications carriers, nor are they traditional media publishers. They're not trying to have it both ways, they're something entirely different and should be regulated differently.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that they are. When they decide that there are (otherwise legal) topics which shall not be discussed on their platforms, they have strayed away from the concepts that brought us the protections of Common Carrier.
"I'm not liable for the content on my platform" , "I'm protected from liability for the editorial decisions made about content on my platform" and "I have Free Speech Rights to make whatever editorial decisions on any content posted on my platform" are not concepts that can coexist. Something
Re: (Score:2)
The sponsors who keep bills paid aren't ever going to be okay with a free-for-all, so a post S230 world will likely end up in a situation where social media companies start using AI to approve posts. Be careful what you wish for. At the end of the day, they're always going to choose profit over your ability to use their platform to speak freely.
Hell, look at Facebook today. My feed already consists of more ads than content posted by my friends and family. I can barely even stand to go on there anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Those sponsors that pay the bills will need to understand that their advertising rates may go waaaaay up if the platform they are advertising on gets caught removing not-illegal material that corresponds to a particular viewpoint (political, religious, etc.) and they lose their shield of immunity.
Being able to send the court a letter that is essentially a Get Out Of Jail card, one that says "Yep, you need to dismiss that suit because we can't be sued for this" is an amazingly powerful tool.
You are correct
Re: (Score:2)
The ability to quiet others is the most important part of free speech, as you can neither listen nor speak if everyone is being drowned out. Traditionally, this quieting is accomplished by freedom of association -- screechers are ejected from the group, not invited in the first place, or the group leaves and reforms elsewhere. To simulate a public discussion, moderation would have to be done by the group participating in the discussion.
The biggest effect a site can have on influencing a discussion is not ce
Re:"Can't have it both ways" is the core argument (Score:5, Insightful)
If the content doesn't break a law and you make an editorial decision to remove it, then you have moved beyond the role of Common Carrier... that's the short-short-short version of the "this is the line that must be crossed" I've heard from legal experts in the past.
Being immune from prosecution and/or civil suit because you are simply the medium the information flows across is a huge thing. The protections come with huge strings, those primarily being that you don't make content-based or viewpoint-based moderation decisions. Your decisions to remove content are based on criteria that do not help or hinder any particular political or religious or (insert other component) here... but that do clearly prohibit material deemed against the law.
It's when you stray into prohibiting a particular topic of conversation when you get into danger. I sat and watched test Facebook Messenger conversations on people's phones disappear when they mentioned Hunter Biden and laptop in the same discussion. A conversation between two individuals, not posted to the world at large, disappeared. That was an example of a "subject that will not be discussed on this platform". That's a clear violation of the concept of Common Carrier protections.
If you don't want the protections of the Common Carrier concept, you don't have to pursue them. But if you do pursue them, that inherently means your platform will be carrying opinions you may disagree with.
The trap we've fallen into is not understanding the difference between "Hate Speech" and "Speech I Hate".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it does. It's what comes right before a hate crime [fbi.gov]:
The UCR Program defines hate crime as a committed criminal offense which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offenderâ(TM)s bias(es) against a:
race
religion
disability
sexual orientation
ethnicity
gender
gender identity
For UCR Program purposes, even if the offenders are mistaken in their perception the victim was a member of a certain group, the offense is still a bias crime because the offender was motivated by bias.
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot already solved this (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious solution is to have a pick-your-own-moderation system, much like how here we can boost/demote a post based on whether it is modded eg funny. A more complicated system akin to web-of-trust would allow for a system where you can pick whose up/down votes you care about, letting various factions participate in a conversation without being censored out of their group nor drowned out by the "loonies" of other groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Slashdot sure solved it alright. That's why half the posts in this discussion are getting moderated based on random users' political opinions rather than upon the actual quality of the post. Nowadays people just see user moderation controls as a lazy way of expressing agreement or disagreement with an idea, because that's how social media has commonly presented it. It was useful back in the day when this site had more traffic and the only people who hit -1 were the genuine trolls and shitposters, b
Re: (Score:2)
Just disable the moderation then, browse at -1.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Slashdot sure solved it alright. That's why half the posts in this discussion are getting moderated based on random users' political opinions rather than upon the actual quality of the post. Nowadays people just see user moderation controls as a lazy way of expressing agreement or disagreement with an idea, because that's how social media has commonly presented it. It was useful back in the day when this site had more traffic and the only people who hit -1 were the genuine trolls and shitposters, but nowadays you're likely to miss a bunch of posts at -1 only because they ran afoul of the groupthink. We already have Reddit if you prefer every discussion to be a circle jerk.
What Penguinoid was proposing wasn't slashdot's system, he just used the rating as an example. His system would be essentially federated rating of any particular post. So a post might by hated by left wing people and loved by right wing, and depending on who you're friends with would determine how that particular post was rated for you. As he said "akin to a web-of-trust" - your recommendations are coming from your clique, they don't include the ratings of people in some other clique who absolutely hate
Re: (Score:2)
That really only works in non-threaded discussions, otherwise you end up with every other post being hidden because the folks inside your "clique" disliked it.
Re: (Score:2)
That really only works in non-threaded discussions, otherwise you end up with every other post being hidden because the folks inside your "clique" disliked it.
You'd apply it at the discovery phase of the forum or social networking, not at the reply/response level. So for twitter it would determine what tweets show up in your results for a particular search or hashtag, and for reddit it might determine how posts are ranked on a subreddit, so default subreddits are usable for everyone and not just those of a certain political bent.
You could also apply it to the ordering of top level comments in a post, using reddit as an example again. Although this organization
Re: (Score:2)
How would picking the content you view make you liable for editorializing?
Re: (Score:2)
But you're moderating for others. If you mod something to -1 most people won't see it because you did that.
Re: (Score:2)
They can see it just fine if they browse at -1 (and slashdot could make that the default if that matters). But if people don't want to see -1 posts, that is freedom of association moreso than censorship.
Bye bye slashdot (Score:2)
How can slashdot or niche sites like it even exist without liability protections? Imagine the trolls we have here on steroids but with none of the attempted wit or humor .. that's what it will be like. A lemon party of trolls .. can you fathom that? FFFFF. Jesus Christ. Not even kidding at this point.
I guess I'm ok with this either way (Score:2)
If the red states get their way, they'll take control away from the companies within their borders. But they should be careful what they wish for, cause it'll apply across the board including
Re: (Score:3)
Please go look up Matt Takbbi's Twitter Files project.
Not much different than any other country that deletes posts and bans people the government doesn't like.
At what point does size trump speech protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Threads, YouTube and others are so large, that they can impact opinion. If a platform like Facebook can take down a post that correctly and accurately labels a group, such as X or Y, as a terrorist group, and prevent that information from reaching others, they've damaged public good. What if the CBC decides they won't allow comments that point out massive flaws in reporting, or, someone pointing that innocent Truckers, demanding government accountability shouldn't be labelled as terrorists.
At what point do you reach a size where censorship is too dangerous or powerful? Auntie Mabel's knitting blog, limiting talks about quilting, that reaches maybe 200 people a month, isn't going to matter. Facebook, Twitter or the CBC limiting talks about COVID-19, and government coverups, that can swing elections, public opinion and even safety, matters to extreme lengths. Should all sites have this limit? I don't think so, it really depends on how many people can be impacted by censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
False, your assertion depends on a specific definition of “public good”. What if the “information” regards the destruction of the public? Is preventing “that information from reaching others” damaging the “public good”? Of course not.
The public knowing they're being harmed is just as valuable as them knowing everything is fine. Exposing damage that people should have the right to know about, is not against public good, it's for public good. The public should be aware, and any attempt to hide or restrict information is without argument against the public.
What if the information was coordination of a terrorist attack to set off a nuclear weapon in New York City?
Simple, explain that, and let the public know about it. The CIA knew that 9/11 was going to happen, they knew the people planning it, they knew the meeting place, and they knew the p
Re: (Score:3)
Same with MSNBC....and even CNN, although not nearly as bad as MSNBC.
Re: (Score:3)
No one has sued them....yet.
But hey, I'll give you two words that illustrate it perfectly:
"Rachel Maddow".
Enough said....
Re: (Score:2)
Really bad take on the subject (Score:5, Interesting)
This posting is very slanted. The implication is that the social media companies don't censor on their own based on their own political biases (they absolutely do). That's not to say that governments aren't already censoring and suppressing free speech of their employees. See Gilbert, Arizona for the disturbing details. What people should really be worried about is TIkTok's Heat button.
Imagine how AWESOME... (Score:3, Funny)
Imagine how AWESOME social media would be if everybody from Texas and Florida were no longer allowed to post?
WAH, S'not fair They wont force you to see my lies (Score:2)
Spam (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate conservative dishonsty, not its ideas. (Score:4, Insightful)
But the reasons for your beliefs, the ideals behind your positions? That's one of the worst things you could possibly lie about.
Political dialog is difficult because real conversation requires respect. And respect requires honesty.
Oh The Irony (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, well, Democrats didn't use the magic formula "To Protect Our Children!" as in "We Need Everyone To Have Large Capacity Semi-automatics TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN!" or "We Need To Keep Vomiting Vast Quantities of GHG's Into The Atmosphere And Allow Poisoning Of Water Sheds TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN!"
classification (Score:2)
So such important discussion revolves around some definition, a classification. Wth.
"Is the color green more like the number nine or more like rock music?" Help needed, supreme court to the rescue.
And vice versa for the other guys (Score:2)
"Corporations have no speech rights!"
"They now censor the way you want them to."
"Corporations have speech rights!"
Free speech and corporations (Score:3)
I see this as a good thing and needs to expand. I realize free speech laws are in relation to government and not corporations, but when social media platforms become a defacto standard, then there are really no choices for anyone to go have free speech somewhere else. When that happens, I think corporations should be held to the same free speech standards as the government. I realize that people will say some heinous things once enabled, but bad people are easily countered with facts. And here is the really important part.... even if someone is really off base, is really a horrible person and says horrible things, it is easy to counter that with facts. But by letting someone speak, even when completely off base, you decrease the liklihood of them radicalizing. Shutting people down completely as has been the norm in the last 10 years causes radicalization. People get more and more desperate to be heard and go to extreme lengths for that to happen. Let people say their piece, then shut them down with facts or choose to ignore them. But EVERYONE should get to speak no matter how bad the message.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Can a lefty please tell me the problem you have with this?
Please show me where in the first amendment that it says a private company is required to provide a platform for your speech. I'd love to use that so I can go on Fox News and regularly explain to their audience that us LGBTQ+ Americans are in fact, not the ones ruining the country.
Re: (Score:3)