Trump just illustrates Twitter’s power and their arbitrary enforcement of the rules. Like I said, I don’t care that Trump got banned, I care that just a few people have so much control over what we know and what we learn about.
I’d like to ban lies and hate speech, but I don’t trust the government or Twitter or any group with it’s own agenda, or people with their own biases to determine what is true, and I’ve seen how hate speech rules can be abused to ban anything anyone finds offensive.
And nor does it matter whether it’s the government doing the banning or private entities, what matters is whether it has a significant effect reducing free expression.
Now? It was the OP I wrote and a summary of a response to the issues raised in that OP and a follow up on it.
Simply wrong. As one the creators of the OPs that were merged into this thread that is a completely fictitious claim. Made up by you.
But let me see if I understand your take on the actual issues raised here and get you to expand.
You think that allowing disinformation is wrong. Do you have a view on who should decide what is disinformation and by what process? Do you have a position on whether or not there is a public good served by making sure that those with concentrated power do not abuse that power? Do you believe there is or is not a degree of power concentration in the hands of a few CEOs that reaches concerning levels? Does your answer change depending on whether or not the restriction of ideas are for ones you agree with vs disagree with? Should the rules of service be consistently applied or are the owners of the platforms free to decide whatever they want whenever they want?
I get @DMC’s positions even as I disagree. Twitter selectively enforcing its rules of service based on any factor they choose, motivated by whatever, is okay by them, no matter if targeting the views they like or they oppose, because private company. These few companies and thus the several CEOs do not have too much concentrated power, and fear of such power potentially being used to stifle dissent are groundless.
Yours I suspect would vary based on whether the speech being stifled is speech you like or not. You’d want a remedy for what you decide is disinformation I imagine and a remedy for what you decide is unwarranted muzzling of views you share.
I acknowledge that judges might block such regulation on first amendment grounds.
IANAL, but I’ve wondered about the feasibility of regulating social media and forcing them to enforce their community standards and user agreements in their current form. So let’s say that their user agreement stipulates that users shall not be allowed to engage in abusive, racist, harassing online behavior, then that standard should be consistently enforced, and government regulators could take action if it’s not. Thus, the community at large puts pressure on the company to have some standards of decency in the first place; the government merely ensures that they enforce those standards consistently, not arbitrarily. The government isn’t regulating speech per se; it’s regulating its enforcement of its “contract” with its users. Until now, the governments have given these companies latitude to enforce them as they see fit (i.e. ban users at their discretion). They should take some of that latitude away, IMO.
As much as I am glad that social media are having second thoughts about having alt-right characters and disinformation on their servers, the way they’ve gone about it is wrong. In a sense, the conservative critics do actually have a point: the moderation is inconsistent. On the other hand, mainstream critics have had a point for a long time, which is that these companies have put ad dollars over their conscience and allowed a social cancer to metastasize. For everyone involved, some regulation would solve a lot of problems.
No, they removed him because he was spouting hateful and inciting language.
That’s exactly why they removed him.
Yes, by users and customers of the service. He may have been popular, but that doesn’t mean much if your sponsors leave you.
You’ll have to be more precise as to what it is that you think that I am agreeing with you on, but chances are, since you started your “question” with “So”, I would say that it is unlikely that whatever interpretation you have come to is correct.
If you think that I am saying that the government should require a private company to provide a platform, you are very mistaken.
No one is owed a platform either.
The difference is, is that the government can punish you for your speech, if it were not for the 1st amendment. All a social media company can do is no longer give you a platform for it.
Do you see the difference at all? In the first case, someone from the government comes and arrests you, or at the very least threatens you, while you are on your soapbox. In the second, someone is just not letting you use theirs.
Completely different in pretty much any way that is rational.
That may be the case, in which case you need to convince enough of your fellow US citizens to update the first amendment to prohibit speech that you feel is harmful.
I wouldn’t be dead set against it, but it would take a pretty compelling argument for me to come over to that side. And adjustments would need to be pretty subtle to avoid some pretty severe unintended consequences.
I disagree, as it is more the audience who is at fault for listening than the speaker for speaking. Better education and becoming “inoculated” to memes and other social media influences, as well as public pressure on social media companies to better police their TOS is probably a much better outcome.
I do fear giving the govt any more control over our speech than absolutely necessary, as one day, I may want to say something the govt doesn’t want me to say.
I don’t think that anyone owes me a platform to express myself, but I am concerned about actually not being allowed to.
Only in the sense that, if someone sends me a chain letter, me not passing it on to 6 of my friends is a limitation on their free expression. (Does anyone remember chain letters, are they still a thing?)
Sure, it does “limit” your free expression, but I don’t think that it restricts your freedom of expression. That’s a nuanced difference, but I think it is very important for this topic.
I see having access to social media platforms to be a privilege, not a right.
Exactly, and how wide would that be? Would the SDMB now be beholden to whatever laws are passed here? Would the mods and the community no longer be able to set and enforce their own standards?
I am sure that they do?
Why? Seriously, why?
Or you can end the “monopoly” by creating a variety of platforms yourself. Hey, look at this, we are on an alternative platform right now! Problem solved, we can go back to bed.
Oooh, and I can go on whatever alt-right site I want, and if they kick me off, then I can have them arrested for violating my constitutional rights!
And this is a great argument for net neutrality. As net neutrality does ensure that everyone has access to the same potential audience.
Removing net neutrality actually does allow for the restriction on someone’s ability to speak.
Just out of curiosity, OP, what is your position on net neutrality?
As well as calls for legislative or constitutional remedies.
Well, the definition of oligopoly is “a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers.” Given that they have near infinite competition, and a tremendous number of producers and sellers, it falls far short. The board that we are currently posting on right here and now is proof of this.
What would this look like? Would your proposed legislation prevent us here on this messageboard from determining and enforcing our own rules of conduct?
This is true, so how about giving actual concrete proposals that you think would remedy the situation you find to be intolerable, rather than just repeating that you don’t like it?
Yeah, that was a bit messed up. When they started filtering against hate speech, suddenly conservatives started being caught up, so they had to not do so, because they were being accused that their neutral filter was politically biased.
They were being pressured and threatened to allow hate speech, largely by the government itself. Do you want to change this from pressure from the president and some members of congress into actual codified legislation?
Sure, if they violated the terms of service.
Well, no, that part would be because the group in control has passed the legislation that you want them to pass to control these companies.
This is an extremely poor summary. If social media companies chose to block political speech that I do not think that they should block, I would be concerned. And I would use my freedom of speech to express that concern, and my resources as a consumer to punish that speech. (This of course, would be an example of “cancel culture”, something that some of the participants of this thread would also like to stomp out.)
I would not go crying to the government to tell them that they have to compel a private company to carry that speech.
I mean, yeah, that’s part of the joy of freedom. Some of us seem to care more about freedom than others in this thread, and it’s not those who are looking to have legislation put restrictions on the TOS a private company may enforce.
Look at where you are typing this, and expressing this argument right now. That is proof positive that you are wrong.
You are the one making an assertion here that is counter to the actual fact that you are currently using a social media platform that is not a part of this oligopoly that you claim has excessive power. If you were right, then this board would not exist.
What I see as your argument is that the government is the only entity that is allowed to police speech, and that individuals and private companies may not. That runs rather counter to the most basic principles of freedom of speech and expression, IMNSHO.
Actually, it illustrates the dangers of having a government put pressure on a private company. They gave him far more rope than they should have due to threats from him and other legislators.
Would you rather put that in the hands of the government?
Agreed. I don’t trust the government to dictate to individuals and private companies what speech they may and must allow.
By “any group” does that include this messageboard? Do you not think that we should be allowed to set and enforce our own rules of conduct?
I haven’t, not really. I’ve heard this assertion, but when asked for examples, it’s never really held up to any level of scrutiny.
I disagree. I think that there is a huge difference between the government, which by definition has a monopoly on the speech that it allows, and a social media platform, which if someone doesn’t like, they can go to another, or make their own.
You’ve seen ATMB whenever someone thinks that they are being inconsistently modded. Do you really want to get the government involved in that discussion?
Yes, and the last place as well. If you don’t like the modding on twitter, you can leave. If you don’t like the modding here, you can leave.
What I disagree with, is if you don’t like the modding here, you can go to a government regulatory body, and get lawyers and bureaucrats involved. That’s a good way to actually have an oligopoly. If modding were subject to lawyers and regulations, the SDMB and any other site that can’t afford to have thousands of lawyers will shut down instantly. Then we only have a few massive social media companies, who are regulated by the government.
That would be a severe issue with freedom of expression.
They were going about it wrong by bowing to pressure from the government to allow this speech, as it was claimed that it would be politically biased to only ban the hate speech. They are, due to public pressure, which includes those contributing those ad dollars, now changing this, to enforce these rules, and not allow people to get away with violating their terms of service due to threats from the government.
Do you have any idea what that regulation would look like? Would this messageboard be subject to that regulation?
Other countries have a more limited view of free speech than we do, and guess what – they are demonstrably freer societies than we are. That’s because they have a more mature view of what freedom, democracy, and citizenship are. Our view of freedom, from maskholes to denialism in all of its forms, is a very childish, adolescent view of how adults should live as free citizens.
A classic example is found in our supposition that extreme speech should be tolerated so that we can know that extreme views exist and put it under the microscope, completely oblivious to the dangers of amplification of dangerous views that end up out-competing rational discourse, which is exactly what has happened since 24-hour cable news and social media became a thing. Sure, there’s good, well-reasoned discourse that people can find if they’re motivated and curious enough.
But what if they’re not motivated and curious? What if they just want to come home from a long day’s work, turn on the television, and find out what’s really happening in the world of politics, business, and science, and instead of fact-based news, they get Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson claiming that the election was stolen, that the coronavirus is a Chinese hoax, and that human activity isn’t causing global climate change? What then? Sure, that idiot has the right to consume that kind of information in theory, but what about the rest of us who have the right not to be infected with that kind of brainwashing?
We need to have some standards, and the free market alone can’t give us that.
This does matter. If it’s government, that is reducing free expression. If it’s private entities, it’s not. The government controlling what Twitter can or can’t disallow would reduce free expression (most notably, Twitter’s).
The solution here is utilizing public pressure to advocate disallowing the really, really bad stuff (i.e. pushing for genocide, advocating abusing children, advocating violence, etc.), but allowing real discussion. And for the most part, that’s what’s happening, though Twitter and others are falling short in some ways (and public pressure should continue to be utilized to put them on the right track).
I agree that the primary thrust has to come from the public itself, but I think government could have some peripheral regulatory role in enforcing its terms of service and ensuring that they are applied consistently, not just whenever they are feeling pressure.
Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have consistently dodged committing to any recognizable standards; they bullshit their way through hearings and then apply standards inconsistently, taking down only the most egregious material and often as a PR stunt.
I don’t know what that means, in many ways. They have healthcare, and a better social safety net, which is cool, but I don’t know how they are “freer”.
That’s not why we should tolerate extreme speech. Would should tolerate extreme speech because there may be a day that what you think is perfectly reasonable, the government thinks is extreme.
We should never be oblivious to the dangers of harmful views. I just don’t think that the government should be in the business, outside of some very specific circumstances, of determining what views are harmful.
People have always told stories and rumors and lies. Yes, it’s amplified now, but the solution is to pressure these companies to rein in their views, which we do as consumers, rather than to get the government involved in policing what is true and false, what is beneficial and what is harmful.
With freedom does come responsibility. And it is the responsibility of the consumer of media to do some level of critical thinking in where they get their information and what credence to give to it.
No, the free market alone won’t, but consumer activism can. You don’t like Fox News, boycott their sponsors. Spread the word. There have been several instances where sponsors dropping a program has resulted in the removal of that personality.
I’d be much more worried about those standards being enforced by the government. Let’s say that the govt doesn’t think that I should be allowed my extreme position that we shouldn’t buy pillows from Mr piloow guey, as that is harmful speech. Then the free market isn’t even allowed to put that pressure on them.
Then every controversial post, tweet, or video will spend years in court, probably getting even more attention, as lawyers argue whether or not moderation was used consistently.
We as consumers and users can put the pressure on them to behave as responsibly as they can in good faith, and if we feel that they are not, we can take our business elsewhere. I much prefer the idea that anyone and everyone can make up their own mind as to whether a moderation was done properly and consistently and with the benefit of the community in mind than to leave it to an actual decision by lawyers and judges.
Monopoly (and oligopoly) are not defined by number of competitors but by degree of domination and control of the market. The fact that many other tiny competitors exist is immaterial if only a very few dominate in a “substantial way”. Cases brought by various Attorneys General will help define how those criteria get interpreted in the specifics of social media, for whom the actual money paying customers are advertisers, and the product is access to users of the platform and data about them. It is tricky that unlike the advertisers, users of the platforms pay not with money but with their data and their viewing of ads. From my perspective that is still payment and the market share of these few companies are large enough to anticompetitively demand a larger margin of that payment. Easy entry alone does not disprove that.
I think government stepping in would make things worse. Maybe the Biden administration wouldn’t totally screw things up, but what about the Trump admin? Or the future Cruz/Hawley admin? That’s why, IMO, it’s important to keep government out of speech issues like this one, except in instances of illegality (i.e. “fire!” in a crowded theater).
Unlikely … if there are well defined guardrails of what reasonable terms of service may look like (c.w. 1A) and companies are making good faith efforts to enforce the terms of service consistently with clear process in place.
I disagree that they “dominate” the market. They are popular, but they have no actual control over their “product”, the users. The users can move to any other platform they wish at any time.
As has been mentioned in this thread, tik-tok came from nowhere to being one of the largest social media companies in mere months. That’s not something that is possible in a monopoly or oligopoly market.
So, it wouldn’t be a decision by the government, but by lawyers. You don’t think that that’s going to favor the largest and most powerful?
On the contrary, easy entry is very much what disproves that. Twitter has no control over either its product or its sponsors. They can move to another platform on a whim. Make a better social media site, and people will forget the old and move to the new.
Government could make things worse, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a slippery slope. I think we are sometimes paralyzed by what could happen to the point that the slippery slope that we fear, happens anyway because we did nothing – doing nothing in the face of extremism is just as costly as overreacting in the absence of it.
I think we should pressure social media companies to prohibit knowingly spreading false information. “Oh but there’s never any possible way to regulate it because…reasons.”
Bull - shit.
If Twitter and Wikipedia can put little warning notes on posts indicating that posts are of questionable validity, then it has the ability to go after user accounts that do nothing more than misinform.
Mind you, I don’t believe that this is going to solve all of our problems, but we have to stop operating with this belief that because a system of regulation can’t be perfect that we can’t have improved regulation. We’ve been crippled by this kind of slippery slope argument for far too long.
The best way to fight the right wing bogeyman is not to live in fear of what it might do if it gains power over us but to fight it head on so that it can’t gain power over us using illegitimate means. That means using the power of truth and using our value system of fairness, informed debate, inclusion, egalitarianism, and not being afraid of our own goddamn shadow all the time.