281–290 of 598 posts
I think the Chinese have something to teach us. Basically, once a social network surpasses say, 20M users, it becomes a defacto political entity, with the power to move elections. Given this immense power, the government should regulate accordingly. Instead of passing detailed regulations though, I am of the opinion that if a company passes 200B USD in enterprise value, that Congress should get the right to appoint 5…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So let’s regulate all major email providers. Are you okay with giving the government that much power?
Yes, I'd be perfectly okay with that. Email is a general utility.
When a state is against net neutrality, pro super PACs, pro hobby lobby/religious tests in employment, pro book banning in libraries, but wants to regulate social networks because "political freedom", their motivations are a bit suspect.
The Florida law says a social media platform "may not willfully deplatform a candidate for office" and imposes fines of up to $250,000 per day on social media companies that ban candidates for elected office. The law also says social platforms "may not apply or use post-prioritization or shadow banning algorithms for content and material posted by or about... a candidate," and may not "censor, deplatform, or shadow b…
No, which is why no one is stopping you from typing in a URL in your browser and visiting a website.
But a computer owner should be able to decide what goes on on their computer (even google or Facebook). The network that connects everyone is what should be regulated and forced to be “free” or “unrestricted”.
When a state is against net neutrality, pro super PACs, pro hobby lobby/religious tests in employment, pro book banning in libraries, but wants to regulate social networks because "political freedom", their motivations are a bit suspect.
The Florida law says a social media platform "may not willfully deplatform a candidate for office" and imposes fines of up to $250,000 per day on social media companies that ban candidates for elected office. The law also says social platforms "may not apply or use post-prioritization or shadow banning algorithms for content and material posted by or about... a candidate," and may not "censor, deplatform, or shadow b…
Who do they define as a candidate? If I'm running for student council would it apply to me? What requirements are there?
Similarly, who is a "journalist"? Anyone can declare they are one.
Finally, what constitutes post-prioritization? If I search for something, then ideally posts relevant to what I searched for would be prioritized in results, does this count as "shadow banning"? In any list there can only be one element that is first. Are the others "shadow banned"?
Now let's look at this and see if the circumstances justify the government seizing the right of the social media hosting company to determine what content they want to serve on their website.
- Does the company have a natural Monopoly due to rights given to them by the public (such as the right of way for cable/equipment installation enjoyed by other common carriers)? No. These companies enjoy no such special privileges.
- Is there a substantial cost for a competitor to enter the market? No. Software and server infrastructure are cheap compared to costs incurred to existing common carriers.
Then I do not see a justification for the government to rescind the rights of the social network operators in this way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> The media-dubbed “don’t say gay” bill forbids kindergarten to second grade teachers from discussing sexual orientation or sexual identity. Oh, the humanity. And if that's _all_ it said you'd be exactly right. What's the rest of the text?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Florida law says a social media platform "may not willfully deplatform a candidate for office" and imposes fines of up to $250,000 per day on social media companies that ban candidates for elected office. The law also says social platforms "may not apply or use post-prioritization or shadow banning algorithms for content and material posted by or about... a candidate," and may not "censor, deplatform, or shadow b…
Unless there are more qualifiers, wouldn't any user be able to avoid being banned by simply running for any office? It's not particularly hard to run for office, it's only hard to be elected. I agree that discriminating on political views has nasty implications, but the wording of this law seems ripe for abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My problem is that the government has found a sweet spot where it can regulate speech and surveil without limits through dependent proxies. It has no need to mandate moderation guidelines.
If the government is regulating speech via dependent proxies, that is in violation of the First Amendment. There is actually developed case law as to what constitutes sufficient government coercion that turns a third party into a state actor, and some of things that have been done actually cut close enough to that threshold to be viably argued at trial. The problem is that no one filing these various cases against so…
Alex Berenson did.
When a state is against net neutrality, pro super PACs, pro hobby lobby/religious tests in employment, pro book banning in libraries, but wants to regulate social networks because "political freedom", their motivations are a bit suspect.
I think the Chinese have something to teach us. Basically, once a social network surpasses say, 20M users, it becomes a defacto political entity, with the power to move elections. Given this immense power, the government should regulate accordingly. Instead of passing detailed regulations though, I am of the opinion that if a company passes 200B USD in enterprise value, that Congress should get the right to appoint 5…
So your solution to the worry that large social networks have the power to move elections, is to put that power in the hands of the people with the most incentive to move elections?
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that shareholders ought to hold this immense power that say Facebook has to move elections?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it consistent to say the government deciding not distribute books is wrong for the same reason the government telling private companies they must distribute speech they disagree with is wrong? Both clearly violate free speech. Maybe you don't actually think free speech is the standard, maybe it's something more vague like an open society, but I don't see this as any different than the state mandating churches r…
This is the problem today. Everyone says they want free speech. But deep down they don't. Some don't want gay marriage written in books, and some don't want anti-vaxxers to post misinformation. Those are 2 sides of the same coin. Freedom of speech is a critical cornerstone of liberal government. The fact that so many sides want to reduce this right is what is scary.