EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone

Not too long ago there was an article on CNN about regulating the social media platforms. Author said: "It doesn't really matter whether these platforms are biased towards liberals or conservatives, the real question is why have we given them this power in the first place."

That was well said. Too bad after Biden's victory, CNN or no one on the democratic side cared about this anymore. Some surely do, but at least it's not being discussed anymore as much as before.

Lots of people ask "But Twitter is a private company, shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they want with their platform?"

Well, unless we live in a complete anarcho-capitalism, no they should not. They need to follow the law and laws can be changed to match with the current situation.

The core issue is that Twitter, Facebook etc. are defacto information sources and platforms for most people on Earth. These companies are managed by radical leftists in Califonia and when they start to decide what information should be visible and what information should not be visible, they create an existential threat to democracies and societies all around the world as well as freedom of speech, politics, religion etc.

Government/Union regulation is not the solution either, but better than this.

Let’s observe the rest of the quotation in the headline: ... key decisions alone “without any supervision, without any accountability, and without any sort of dialogue or transparency for the kind of decisions that they’re taking.”

I don’t know what the content of the bill in question is, though I would guess it is well meaning while somewhat missing the mark.

I don’t think the statement is particularly objectionable. I feel like dialogue and transparency and accountability are pretty good things to have. But maybe dialogue and accountability are really just ways for politicians to have these platforms bend to their will. To me, it still feels better than these issues being decided as part of @jack’s part-time journey of self discovery[1].

It seems to be less extreme than requirements that certain broadcasters produce balanced coverage or that banks do not decide loans based on protected characteristics.

I sympathise with the argument that private companies should be allowed to do what they like within the bounds of whatever contract they have with their users. But Twitter and Facebook position themselves as quasi-public spaces welcome to all, and I think if you’re going to act more like a (classical) forum, you might need to be treated by the law like one. In the U.K. if you set up a path open to the public across your back garden and leave it accessible for long enough and consistently enough then it will become a public right of way and you’ll have to keep it open and accessible.

[1] there’s two other arguments here: one is that it’s a savvy political calculation to reduce the threat of legislation from democrats. The other is that it’s due to growing pressure from employees. I think I’m not cynical enough to believe the first alternative—Twitter seemed to be trying to act in the public interest after it was obvious who would win Georgia and before putting trump in Twitter jail, and if they want to curry favour with the new regime, why not make it obvious? I find the second alternative quite compelling but this is countered by the relative inaction for the past 5 years and the fact that it seems these companies are rarely subjected to more employee pressure than seeing a few memes being made about how awfully they are behaving. But maybe Twitter employees saw Twitter as appropriately trying to act as a public forum and we’re satisfied with the status quo until the events in the capitol.

In an internet ruled world, were mass communication was now possible, existed a company who became so powerful that the product in which they developed was treated as important as a telephone, electricity, or the internet itself. As its power and influence grew, it aligned itself politically and ideologically. Those influences meant that individuals who expressed beliefs contrarian to those aligned with the organisation were met with digital ostracism. At first it was just normal individuals, but as time went on even world leaders were having their communications silenced or interfered with.

Those who were on the receiving end of this censorship were often forced to form alternative means of communication, but often it was the case that these powerful groups colluded to ensure this was not possible.

What does it mean when the only objective voice to comment on matters originating within the borders of the USA comes from outside of those borders.

Silicon Valley has become so powerful and moneyed that they believe they are supra government.

Tristan Harris comments that the laws that are designed to protect us, don't exist within the realms of social media.

Many authors have speculated on how modern society would work if rather than 1 legal system you would have large companies that each have their own laws and enforcement. Usually the world is made into a dystopia.

I think a 1 government is in general more friendly to fringe or extremist people. Not that the laws are better, but government legal system must in its core treat everyone similar where same act done by two people are punished similarly. This aspect of law make people feel safe against arbitrary enforcement and that benefits both people of fringe as well as non-fringe views.

This is a mess. Something I just thought about, there’s been a lot of talk about the US regulating the social networks, but will there be first amendment issues if the US tries to create rules or laws for how social networks can regulate communication? Seems like it might be a catch 22