Yes, I do disagree with trying to make people anything.
Re-education camps sound like a great idea, until it is you that is need of re-education.
You said that the real problem is social attitudes. How do you plan on changing those? If you don’t plan on changing those, then is it not you that is ignoring what you claim to be the “real” problem?
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about this:
Would you support this proposed legislation?
They’re not so good when they are arbitrary; they banned Trump today but they could ban or suspend Ilhan Omar or BLM activist tomorrow. What if a large social media company like Twitter gets bought out by Rupert Murdoch, who then insists on moderating with ideological conformity? It would potentially have the same impact on political organizing as it would if a court ruling banned public employees unions. Legally valid though it might be, it wouldn’t serve the public interest. You can’t strictly look at this through the lens of Thomas Jefferson’s libertarian hypotheses.
I see nothing wrong with imposing a framework that says to social media companies that if they are going to moderate, that moderation has to apply consistently and at least attempt to do so evenly, acknowledging the fact that they might occasionally over or under-moderate in some instances.
I don’t think there would be any way for such a law to be enforced consistent with the First Amendment. Yes, a right-wing Twitter could do bad things. I don’t see how this could be stopped by government – only by the market and society. Giving government that power strikes me as more dangerous than allowing this possibility.
I was responding to someone talking about using a bully pulpit, and you reply with reeducation camps? I don’t think there is any point responding further to this absurdity.
As for your site, I get a notice saying “Our European users are important to us” - but not important enough to let us view the web page.
No, you were saying that the problem was people. I am asking you what your remedy for people not doing what you think that they should be doing is.
If you don’t have a remedy, then you can’t really criticize others for “ignoring” the problem, now can you?
I’ll quote the relevant bits for you.
Sounds great, don’t it? Forces social media companies to carry someone else’s message, no matter how reprehensible.
So, let’s say that a candidate gets on the SDMB and starts spewing some hate speech here. They get banned for violating the TOS. Then the SDMB is fined $100,000 a day until they are reinstated.
Unless you can come up with a remedy that doesn’t destroy SDMB and sites like it, then whatever “cure” you come up with is far worse than the disease.
So far, no one has proposed anything that would function to control the speech of twitter without forcing their smaller competitors to close.
I don’t see how this is really a first amendment issue though anymore than regulating a telephone company or broadcast television station is.
Regarding 230, look, companies like Comcast and other ISPs are already generally required to respond to take-down orders for things like copyright infringement or online child exploitation – the government doesn’t hold them accountable for hosting that content, only for taking it down in a timely manner. The same ought to apply for speech that is slanderous.
With regard to decisions on whether to ban someone for violating terms of service, I see no reason why we can’t regulate a company’s behavior so that they live up to those terms of service and not just impose them whenever they feel like it. The government wouldn’t necessarily be in a position to tell Twitter or FB what their terms of service should be, only that whatever terms they have, they should impose as consistently as possible. There should be some flexibility to take into account things like a shortage of human moderators and an acknowledgement that they might not be able to remove content or users within minutes or even hours.
But these conditions aside, these companies have lobbied congress to impose severe criminal penalties, including jail time, for things like password sharing and downloading torrents of data. So they want their TOS to have the teeth of the law when it serves them, but they want it to have absolutely no teeth when it comes to protecting the consumers who wittingly or unwittingly create their fortunes. I have a problem with that.
There are no regulations on the content that a telephone company carries.
Broadcast television uses a public resource, the airwaves. Cable stations are not regulated by the govt.
What remedy would I have if I felt that I was not treated fairly by a social media company? Is there a regulatory board to which I can complain? If so, what is the company’s obligation in responding to that complaint? Do you think that the SDMB would continue to exist if those who did not get their way in ATMB started sending their complaints to this govt regulatory board?
Twitter and facebook lobbied for these laws?
But those “terms of service” couldn’t possibly include every possible explicit instance of what would be considered a violation – it would probably include broad categories, like “hate speech”, or “promotion of violence”. That requires judgment calls. And giving government power over enforcing those terms gives government power over those judgment calls. That’s very dangerous, IMO – much more dangerous than letting these companies operate as private entities.
Generally speaking, that is correct, but asking companies to adhere to their terms of service is essentially like asking a company to honor its contract; it’s not regulating content per se.
…an arbitrary reason to justify regulations, frankly, but your point is acknowledged.
I don’t think SDMB or any website is necessarily in elevated danger of being regulated out of existence, but these are questions/issues that should be addressed. Still, the fact that I don’t have a specific answer for each one at present isn’t a justification to duck the issue of improving regulatory oversight altogether. There’s a way to do this. No doubt, regulation can introduce new sets of problems - we can deal with those problems as they arise.
But we have a very real problem with a new phenomenon (social media) that clearly has an impact on how we think and share ideas, and for all of the talk about the dangers of regulating speech, there are clearly dangers to freedom and democracy that result from taking no action at all. People in a democracy aren’t served by relying on simple axioms; we have to think through these problems, acknowledging that we’re not always going to get the balance right the first time, but that we will keep trying until we do.
As far as government regulation itself, I personally would propose that they stop at the terms of service, and that those terms of service should be proposed by the platform and agreed to by the user.
That being said, I think that at some point, assuming these things aren’t already part of that contract, reasonable people might ask Twitter and Facebook why they wouldn’t include prohibitions on hate speech in their terms of service.
If it’s revealed that some anti-Semite was radicalized on Twitter or Facebook or Parler or whatever and he goes out and murders 10 people in a synagogue (like the Tree of Life tragedy in Pittsburgh), people might force the issue with these companies, who in turn might feel compelled to respond, and thereafter, I’d expect the government to hold them accountable. That’s only fair, IMO.
The politest word I can find for your view is that I am baffled by it. I did not say the problem was people, I said the problem was changing attitudes (in this case, attitudes towards free speech). We know that attitudes towards black people, women, homosexuals, divorce, religion, raising children etc, etc have changed hugely in the last 100 years, and that many people have worked to cause these changes, to persuade people to chance their views. Do you believe trying to persuade people that racism is bad is wrong? Do you object to women trying to make sexual harassment in the workplace socially unacceptable? I’m thinking the answer to those questions is no. In fact, you’d happily support both. So why is trying to persuade people to support free speech different?
Sure, but I still am not sure what the point is here. So far as I can tell Twitter did adhere to their terms of service, it’s just that some people’s judgement is that they did not.
I truly do. That is the main reason that I am against such regulations, as I don’t see how a small messageboard or social media site can do everything necessary to comply with regulations. Even minor ones would likely be more than people are willing and able to deal with.
And I feel that freedom of speech and expression is far more served by having small sites than by controlling the larger ones that are left.
I truly believe that this has been said about every improvement of communication in this history of mankind, probably starting with language itself. Certainly writing caused social upheaval, and the printing press completely reshaped the entire culture, government, and religion of Europe at the time.
Sure, we need to think about these problems, but we also have to acknowledge that trying to “solve” these problems may well cause more harm than good, and that that harm may not be rectified by simply trying again. Especially when one of the harms may very well end up being no longer allowed to talk about the problems that the remedy has caused.
The printing press was outlawed and severely regulated in much or Europe, specifically because it allowed the dissemination of “dangerous” ideas. It’s really no different than what we are going through now, and I believe that any attempts at the government trying to regulate these “dangerous” ideas will do far more harm than good.
It’s not – it’s a very good thing. But AFAICT, what you’ve been advocating is not “support free speech”, but rather “some speech shouldn’t have the possibility of social consequences”.
I am baffled by your straight up contradiction.
The problem is not people, it’s just the attitudes that people hold?
This is different from the statement
There is persuasion, and then there is making people do things. I have no problem with the former, but I was objecting to your statement of the latter. If you misspoke, that’s fine, but when we are talking about things that are a nuanced and important as free speech, then it is important to be specific.
Now, as to what you have now said:
I don’t get what you are trying to say here at all. You are not trying to persuade anyone to support free speech. You are trying to persuade people to support restrictions on free speech, to force messageboards and social media sites to not be allowed to have their own community standards and enforcement. You want the government to come in and have control over what it deems to be free speech.
There’s a huge difference. I thought you were just conflating them in order to strawman my position. Attitudes can and do change, as the examples I mentioned show.
What I meant was the former. If you were just objecting to my phrasing, then fine. I want to persuade people to change their attitudes, not force anyone to change (which is impossible anyway).
This is really more relevant to the cancel culture debate, but I want to persuade people to value truth, honesty, and free speech more highly, because a lot of the current censorship is being inspired by Twitter mobs and the like. When it comes to these tech giants, I think we may need to either reduce their domination of the marketplace, or ensure enough transparency and fairness that they are not able censor views either on their own or the government’s behalf.
I think your view that legislation could be counterproductive is a valid one, and it would certainly need to be carefully considered. The law you mentioned sounds like it could have unintended consequences, although your idea of unbannable Floridian candidates coming to the SDMB to shill themselves seems far fetched,
The case for some guard rails is not the case for passing bad regulations. As stated previously in this thread, most of us scoff when the Big Financials and Big Energy companies warn of the harm regulations will do to the little guy as an argument to do nothing. This is the same.
Of course anything implemented would HAVE to be consistent with the 1A rights of the corporate persons that are the big companies. The model Navalny suggested, a small thing really, does that.
It essentially is this:
And that they have some established system to appeal judgements.
I don’t think that it’s that big a difference. People are what they do, they are a collection of the attitudes that they hold. They can change, sure, but in doing so, you are changing the people who hold them.
I grew up in a fairly racist family, very religious, very conservative. It took me some years after I left that house before I started to change. I would very much say that I changed, not just my attitude.
I really don’t think that you can seperate it as easily as all that.
Okay, so do I. Obviously, I think that my way of thinking is superior, as if I thought a different way of thinking was better, then I would switch to that. I need to be given a compelling reason to change my way of thinking.
I also assume that most people are like that, that they aren’t going to change because they are asked to, even if it is polite. They need to be given a reason to change. They need to come to the realization that their way of thinking has a flaw.
It’s not like people have not, and are not currently trying to force people to change. I don’t know that it is impossible, but I do know that it is extremely problematic to try. Take China and their re-education camps, for instance. I really don’t want anyone having that sort of power, it’s not something that I would consider to be acceptable in a free and fair society, but it is something that is and has been done when the govt starts thinking that there are those who have “incorrect” attitudes.
That’s very noble of you. You don’t think that they already do? Do you feel that you value truth, honest, and free speech more than the others in this thread?
I see that as your opinion, but I have yet to see any actual backing for it.
Okay, that’s a conversation about monopolies and anti-trust. I disagree that their domination is due to their business practices, and feel that the “twitter mobs” are fickle enough that they will jump on the next bright shiny and leave twitter in the dust.
Do you not think that a messageboard or social media site should be allowed to create and enforce its own community standards?
I do not believe that you have shown any evidence that this is happening. But, it is odd that you you want the govt to get involved in preventing them from acting on the government’s behalf. That just doesn’t actually make any sense to me.
*I think that’s acceptable modification of your quote, apologies if it is not. You made two different claims that needed to be unpacked and responded to individually.
That in particular, sure.
But, if this is a “good” law that becomes widespread, and if we think about all the messageboards, not just this one, then I think that it becomes almost a certainty that this becomes an issue.
What regulations do you think would be good? What would they look like, who would write them, and who would enforce them?
I did not know that that was generally a thing. In any case, I am not “big tech”, so if you want to scoff at twitter, then that’s fine. But you are scoffing at me, and it is not the same.
It would also have to be consistent with the 1a rights of the users and the community that it serves. This should include a community choosing to not allow certain forms of speech, even if they are legal. If a community wants everyone to say, “ni!” and doesn’t want anyone to say the word “it”, then they should be allowed to enforce that.
I have yet to see what it is that you propose that is not already done. Twitter does have a framework, and it does attempt to apply that consistently and evenly, with the fact that there may occasionally be over or under moderation.
They have that, too.
So, let’s make this concrete… You get kicked off or otherwise sanctioned from a social media site, and you feel that the moderation was not applied to you consistently or evenly. You appeal through the established system of the social media site, and your appeal is denied.
Do you have any other steps, any other remedies to seek at that point?
If not, then you have described exactly what the current situation is, and you are not advocating for any actual change.
If so, then what does that remedy look like? Is it a separate regulatory board to which you can complain, and they will investigate said complaint on your behalf, and enforce compliance and penalties if they take your side that moderation was not enforced consistently and evenly?
They do?
My understanding is that they have a TOS which obligates users but not them in any way, and I saw rules bent for the president and then stopped once it was clear the other party would have control of both the Executive and Congressional branches.
I don’t know that you have a good understanding then. They have a TOS that they follow and attempt to be consistent and even. The point of them not having an obligation is simply legalese that you can’t sue them if you disagree. They have the full defense in a court that they cannot be legally held to that TOS.
That they don’t have to be held legally to the TOS is pretty much the entire point of this conversation.
Do you think that the TOS should be legally enforceable? If you feel that a social media site is not upholding that TOS, you should be able to sue, or to have some other legal remedy?
And they explained exactly why, as he was an influential public figure, he was given more leeway. It may have not been the best decision, and it may be one that they revisit in the future, but it seemed as though that was best for exactly what it was that you want, free expression.
This is your opinion, and verges on CT territory. You think that it had nothing to do with him inciting an insurrection against the United States?
If what you say is true, they would have cut off his twitter on November 4th, not waited 2 months.
Even before the election, before it was clear the other party would have control, they were putting disclaimers on many of his tweets. How does that fit with your contention that they are trying to curry favor with the government and party in control?
I’m not sure what remedy you think would be fitting. Should they have cut Trump off during his campaign when he was tweeting and retweeting hate speech? Should they have cut him off when he was president and doing likewise? Or do you think that they should have not sanctioned him at all, and that he should still be free to use their platform to spread his message?