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

61–70 of 152 posts

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

#61

Post by phkahler »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #3

I really struggle to understand why these companies think they need to function like governments when it comes to removing content from their platforms. Does it really all boil down to protecting any engagement at all costs? The men running these company live like wannabe kings but have absolutely no backbone when it comes to having a stance about moderating for basic decency and are profiting greatly off of festerin…

>> The men running these company live like wannabe kings but have absolutely no backbone when it comes to having a stance about moderating for basic decency and are profiting greatly off of festering trash heaps.

Part of that is they don't want responsibility. The phone companies in the US are classified as "common carriers" which in part means they are not held responsible for misuse (drug deals, terrorist plots, whatever, discussed on their system). The flip side is that the are not allowed to discriminate - their job is to complete calls.

Online "platforms" want no responsibility for the content people post. They want to be common carriers, but that would also prevent them from discriminating (even algorithmically) what people see. Since they aren't properly classified/regulated yet they're playing a game trying to moderate content while also claiming no responsibility for content. It does not make sense to let them have it both ways.

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

#62

Post by philipkglass »

chii wrote: post #27
_heimdall wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should the users be punished by what they post? What kind of punishment exactly? If governments punish users for content, assuming the content isn't clearly illegal, that's government censorship and may be a free speech violation depending on jurisdiction. Platforms censoring or prioritizing content is a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform. I'm not sure tha…

> a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly, so a platform that turned itself into a public square (and extracting rents from doing so) means they get to control a narrative displayed in public (presumably suitable to their agenda). A…

what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly

Which one platform for user generated content do you think holds the natural monopoly? I agree that network effects limit competition, absent government intervention, but among my acquaintances people are using:

- Discord

- Snapchat

- Instagram

- TikTok

- Bluesky

- YouTube

- Twitter/X

- Reddit

I think that enforcing anti-trust would be enough to keep any one platform or corporate owner from monopolizing public discourse.

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

#63

Post by LeonB »

kingstnap wrote: post #55
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!

Interesting point.

It’s a kind of reframing (or consequence of) the bullshit asymmetry principle.

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

#64

Post by IAmBroom »

matwood wrote: post #45
philipallstar wrote: post #40

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. That is what most people mean by "responsible". The platform isn't lying, any more than if I write "1 equals 2" on a letter and send it via the mail system to someone else is the mail system lying.

What if the platform decides that people will send more mail if they piss them off by copying your letter and sending it to everyone in their service area? Is that still just you lying? At what point does the platform become responsible for amplifying what you said? Are you responsible when it's amplified to everyone if all you ever intended was sending it out into the void?

Yes, the analogy to the postal service falls apart when discussing one-to-one correspondance. That's more like a DM than a social media.

If however some of your junk mail included mass mailings of brochures to join the KKK or some neo-nazi group, I could see why people would want the postal service to crack down on that. That is a fair analogy.

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

#65

Post by croes »

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…

>"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

You do realize that this includes the freedom of people who get harassed online by others.

German journalist Dunja Hayali’s rights where violated by hate comments after social media and nuis sites misquoted her on her reporting on Charly Kirk‘s funeral

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

#66

Post by IAmBroom »

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.

> Most people look at the internet and conclude that hasn't worked out very well.

Cite?

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

#67

Post by gwd »

IAmBroom wrote: post #60
xienze wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> People can make judgment calls. Those are opinions.

I'm not sure that's a helpful distinction. In some sense, everything we classify as a 'fact' is a judgement call: is the sun a giant ball of fusing hydrogen? I mean, probably, but maybe we're all living in some sort simulation and it doesn't really exist at all; Or maybe you are living in your own personal "Truman Show", being fed lies by everyone who shows you scientific "evidence" about the sun's nature.

But "the sun is a giant ball of fusing hydrogen" is a different type of statement than "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla", or "Mozart is better than Beethoven".

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

#68

Post by IAmBroom »

IAmBroom wrote: post #60
xienze wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

@gwd: absolutely true; all the "facts" I know are either a long series of supporting ideas ("this is a chair and I can sit on it") or something I was told by an authority I trust ("Africa exists").

I still say there is a difference between "Africa exists" and "gwd's statement about the lack of 'facts' is heretical and they should be imprisoned".

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

#70

Post by IAmBroom »

croes wrote: post #59
xienze wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I guarantee you that, if only they could, there are governments that would jail people for opinions. The US would have likely have done something to homosexuals, with or without sexual activity. Ditto on supporting Communism 'in your heart'. NK and other countries would do the same (OK, not NK for supporters of communism...).
Post reply on HN