a social media site is someone else's living room more than it is a public sidewalk. you recognize the community standards, or you go off and start your own jam. i have done both.
I think Sanders has this right:
"tomorrow it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view."
"So I don't like giving that much power to a handful of high tech people..."
That is true. But if a handful of real estate conglomerate becomes a monopoly and comes to own every single living room in the country, forcing everyone to pay it rent, and put restrictive covenants on what you can and cannot say in your rented living room and who you were allowed to invite into your rented home, I think the locus of power has shifted too far into private hands.
Free speech protections are very limited and are only prevent the government from fining and jailing you for your speech until it becomes a credible threat, so being banned on social media is not in any way a violation of your free speech. We are not exempt from social repercussions, losing a job being criticized, or other actions because of our speech on private property that we do not own. I would hope that the TOS on social media sites is applied even;y to all partisan inputs but when any group crosses the line to trolling, making threats to a person or groups of people, supports treason, and sedition then they have crossed the line and need to be removed.
If you don't like the rules then refuse to accept the TOS and leave. Go create your own platform and whine there.
The less verbose version of the OP:I've posted before about concerns about the social media issue. That we have not really figured out what to do.
On the one hand, we think we support 'free speech' outside of extreme cases, like calling for a march on the capitol to violently halt the peaceful transfer of power in an election. If someone wants to say 'the moon landing was faked' or 'the election was stolen', so be it, the response is for others to say that's wrong.
But as the lies have fooled tens of millions, as they have been deadly, creating a hostility to masks, a refusal to get vaccinated, the public has looked to social media companies to go from being 'just a platform' that isn't in the role of policing content, like a telephone company doesn't police what people say in phone calls, to not allowing especially bad lies.
But it's not clear where that line is drawn or why. In theory, if you post an incorrect capitol for California or a wrong year it became a state, that's false information or a 'lie'; should the company be responsible for determining it's false and taking corrective action?
They write policies about where they draw the line, but they're going to be inherently somewhat arbitrary and subjective, trying to have it both ways between being 'just a platform' except when they aren't and acting as censor at other times; and the risk exists of their censoring simply speech they want to for some reason.
trump is pretty unpopular outside the Republican Party, making his ban go down easier, but is that how it should work, that the popularity of a poster or viewpoint has a role in whether it's banned?
These are hard questions, and this sort of reactive taking action when there's a public outcry doesn't answer them.
Bad policies tend to happen when made in reaction to exceptional events. They're often designed that way - use public outrage over an outlier to get a broad policy passed that overreaches. So if general social media policies are set from the worst item they can find, that isn't likely to be a good overall policy.
These precedents of censoring and banning are onerous as they are more broadly applies. What happens when the social media companies want to silence talk of regulating them? When they want to ban politicians who support policies they don't like?
Interestingly, just today I saw that Bernie has spoken out on this, and seems to have a similar opinion, saying that trump is horrible but he's not really comfortable with the ban.
This is becoming clearer as trump's ban led first to the explosion of Parler, and now it's reported there is a new pro-trump platform coming, which of course will have none of the policing of right-wing lies, showing further how we have not figured these issues out.
Do 'normal' social media sites become sites for non-Republicans, as Republicans flock to alternative platforms? What do we do about harmful lies on alternative platforms? Does profit incentive push mainstream companies to try to keep the Republican posters? It's a mess.
A basic idea on all this is the idea that the idea of 'free, rational discussion by informed citizens' is greatly corrupted by 'big money interests' and other interests (like Russia) who spend large sums to lie to the public on these systems - see Cambridge Analytica and their '5000 data points on every voter'.
Anyway, here's Bernie's interview.
Sanders: 'I don't feel comfortable' about Trump's Twitter ban (cnn.com)
Who gets to decide what someone’s intent was behind a statement posted on DP at, say, 1:30 in the morning, a Democrat or a Republican?B). Should speech on the internet which has been posted with the specific intent to cause harm to society be banned?
Of course not. He wants only government to have that power (and to be specific, only the right kind of government. Or perhaps I should say “left kind.”)I think Sanders has this right:
"tomorrow it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view."
"So I don't like giving that much power to a handful of high tech people..."
Who gets to decide what someone’s intent was behind a statement posted on DP at, say, 1:30 in the morning, a Democrat or a Republican?
But hasn't that situation existed more so in the past? Thinking back to the days when there were few newspapers, radio and TV in a market didn't they have even more control over what was published? Today those three media sources have online comments sections or Twitter feeds where the public has a greater ability to weigh in. In addition to that there are many other avenues for expression, including this forum. I would argue that the venues for expression today are unprecedented, and growing.That is true. But if two or three real estate conglomerates became monopolies (or oligopolies) and came to own every single residential property in the country, forcing everyone to pay them rent, and put restrictive covenants on what you can and cannot say in your rented living room and who you were allowed to invite into your rented home, I think the locus of power has shifted too far into private hands.
But hasn't that situation always existed, and even more so in the past? Thinking back to the days when there were few newspapers, radio and TV in a market didn't they have even more control over what was published? Today those three media sources have online comments sections or Twitter feeds where the public has a greater ability to weigh in. In addition to that there are many other avenues for expression, including this forum. I would argue that the venues for expression today are unprecedented, and growing.
Private forum, private forum rules, just like any other privately owned business. Comply or find another forum/job.i see people banned here all the time.
But Facebook and Twitter have no where near that level of control. Trump is free to tell anyone who will listen that the 2020 election was stolen. No one is stopping him, but Twitter and Facebook are under no obligation to amplify his claims.That is true. But if two or three real estate conglomerates became monopolies (or oligopolies) and came to own every single residential property in the country, forcing everyone to pay them rent, and put restrictive covenants on what you can and cannot say in your rented living room and who you were allowed to invite into your rented home, I think the locus of power has shifted too far into private hands.
Yes, the first mass-published newspaper (1830), The Times of London ('The Thunderer'), was influential and controlled what was published.But hasn't that situation existed more so in the past? Thinking back to the days when there were few newspapers, radio and TV in a market didn't they have even more control over what was published? Today those three media sources have online comments sections or Twitter feeds where the public has a greater ability to weigh in. In addition to that there are many other avenues for expression, including this forum. I would argue that the venues for expression today are unprecedented, and growing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?