Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 152 posts

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#51

Post by amanaplanacanal »

tiahura wrote: post #34
goalieca wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. Does the government then setup a ministry of truth? Who gets to decide that?

In most common law countries, juries fill that roll. Currently, in the US, internet companies get a special exemption from the laws that apply to other media companies via the DMCA. If traditional media companies publish libelous material, they get sued. Facebook and Google get a "Case Dismissed" pass. Most people look at the internet and conclude that hasn't worked out very well.

It's unclear to me what a good solution would look like. If platforms didn't have those protections, they probably wouldn't be able to exist at all. Any moderation would have to be perfect, or they would be open to lawsuits. And no platform could afford that. It's a tough one.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#52

Post by LeonB »

goalieca wrote: post #13
jgeada wrote: post #2

I think this might be a misinterpretation of the word "responsible". If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible". Government sets the rules, and if someone fail to comply, there are consequences against those responsible. Government isn't responsible, it is holding them resp…

> If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. Does the government then setup a ministry of truth? Who gets to decide that?

A “ministry of truth” would (I assume) be a part of the executive branch of government.

Whereas the creation of laws and the interpretation of laws are powers that the executive branch does not have, and are held separately by the legislative and judicial branches.

In a, well, y’know “functioning” democracy. Apparently.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#53

Post by xienze »

gwd wrote: post #32
bradley13 wrote: post #18

Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. As for falsehoods: some people will be mistaken, some people will lie, and sometimes sarcasm will be misunderstood. Why should anyone be liable? It is on each individual to inform themselves, and to decide what to believe and what to disrega…

> It doesn't say "if your opinion is correct". Opinions cannot be right or wrong. > It makes no exceptions whatsoever, and that is what we need to strive for. It certainly does. See libel / defamation / perjury / false representation / fraud / false advertising / trademark infringement.

> Opinions cannot be right or wrong.

I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion, someone has certainly made a judgement call that your opinion is wrong!

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#54

Post by LeonB »

ecshafer wrote: post #29

This survey is too vague to be worthwhile. Sure some of these are scary how many people say "yes", but people say yes all of the time to vague sounding pleasantries. When they say "responsible" say specific actions. Should people be arrested for what they post on social media when its an opinion? Should platforms automatically analyze all messages and automatically remove messages that it deems not truthful? Should t…

Absolutely.

They hand-wave tremendously complex questions, in such a way that the respondent is free to interpret them any way you wish.

A similar survey question might be:

> I am thinking of a number. Is it, a) too high or b) too low?

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#55

Post by kingstnap »

ddmma wrote: post #28

If disinformation would treated as copyrighted content then world would be better place.

Facts are public domain and can't be copyrighted (you can only argue your creative expression of them, ex in a textbook, is yours).

But I suppose that wouldn't apply to disinformation. So your made up bullshit is yours to keep!

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#56

Post by LeonB »

exabrial wrote: post #5

I’d like governments to instead enforce monopoly laws and the FTC to sue for crappy business practices. I don’t want them playing speech police.

Yes, absolutely.

The survey could say, “given that the existence of corporate monopolies demonstrates weak and non functional governments, should governments a) cede more power to the monopolies, or b) pretend to claw power back from the monopolies?”

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#57

Post by gwd »

xienze wrote: post #53
gwd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't say "if your opinion is correct". Opinions cannot be right or wrong. > It makes no exceptions whatsoever, and that is what we need to strive for. It certainly does. See libel / defamation / perjury / false representation / fraud / false advertising / trademark infringement.

> Opinions cannot be right or wrong. I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion, someone has certainly made a judgement call that your opinion is wrong!

> I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion

Can you give an example of someone in a modern democracy jailed for their "opinion"?

To wit, are the examples you're thinking of "statement of opinion", "statement of fact", "pejorative insult", or "incitement"?

Saying "I think is an idiot" is an opinion. "The earth is flat" or "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions; neither is, "Kick out all the ."

And yeah, in North Korea you'll absolutely be jailed for expressing some opinions. That may make them illegal, but it doesn't make them no longer opinions.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#58

Post by pickledoyster »

bradley13 wrote: post #18

Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. As for falsehoods: some people will be mistaken, some people will lie, and sometimes sarcasm will be misunderstood. Why should anyone be liable? It is on each individual to inform themselves, and to decide what to believe and what to disrega…

>Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand.

I think quite a few Europeans have lasting and direct experience with totalitarian, oppressive regimes. Which might also explain why they have stricter (or simply more precise) laws governing expression – not as an oppressive tool, but as a safety valve for the society.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#59

Post by croes »

xienze wrote: post #53
gwd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't say "if your opinion is correct". Opinions cannot be right or wrong. > It makes no exceptions whatsoever, and that is what we need to strive for. It certainly does. See libel / defamation / perjury / false representation / fraud / false advertising / trademark infringement.

> Opinions cannot be right or wrong. I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion, someone has certainly made a judgement call that your opinion is wrong!

I doubt that they are jailed for opinions but for lies or threats or defamation etc.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#60

Post by IAmBroom »

xienze wrote: post #53
gwd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't say "if your opinion is correct". Opinions cannot be right or wrong. > It makes no exceptions whatsoever, and that is what we need to strive for. It certainly does. See libel / defamation / perjury / false representation / fraud / false advertising / trademark infringement.

> Opinions cannot be right or wrong. I’d say if you can be jailed for a particular opinion, someone has certainly made a judgement call that your opinion is wrong!

People can make judgment calls. Those are opinions. That still doesn't make yours, nor theirs, wrong.

Immoral, unethical, impractical, or contrary to human rights, perhaps.

Post reply on HN