Responsibility is nice, accountability is nicer. Having to testify before Congress or pay a sub percentage point of annual profits in fines is not accountability.
It is accountability, but not sufficient to be a significant deterrent.
People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
71–80 of 152 posts
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#72Several 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 is on each individual to inform themselves, and to decide what to believe and what to disregard.
That's where the conundrum lies, requiring individual responsibility for protecting a whole society of potential bad actors using this freedom to break society apart.
How is it solved? No one knows, what we know is that relying on individuals to each act on their own to solve it won't work, it never works, we also see the effects on society from the loss of any social cohesion around what "truth" is, even though before the age of Internet and social media there were vehicles to spread lies, and manipulate people, this has been supercharged in every way: speed of spread, number of influential voices, followings, etc.
Anything that worked before probably doesn't work now, we don't know how to proceed but using platitudes from before these times is also a way to cover our eyes to what is actually happening: fractures in society becoming larger rifts, supercharged by new technologies, being wielded as a weapon.
I don't think government censorship is the answer, nor I think that just letting it be and requiring every single person to be responsible in how they critically analyse the insurmountable amount of information we are exposed to every day is the answer either.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#73Actually, no, reasonable people do not want either platforms or governments to moderate content. Who defines what "problematic content" is?
> reasonable people do not want
I'm glad you're both a reasonable person, and available to identify all others, so that the set of reasonable people want the same thing.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#74Earlier 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?
> Are you responsible when it's amplified to everyone if all you ever intended was sending it out into the void?
You didn't send it out into the void.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#75Earlier 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’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…
> "The holocaust never happened" are not opinions
But would you dare state out loud in Germany that, in your opinion, the official number of Holocaust victims is actually much less than what's been widely reported? Even if you had what you believed was solid evidence supporting your argument? I bet you wouldn't.
> neither is, "Kick out all the ."
How about voicing your opinion that should be barred from emigrating to because ? Bet you wouldn't try that either, because your opinion is in "hate speech" territory now.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#76Several 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…
This is all true, with a few exceptions. For example, incitement to violence or false allegations that do serious reputational damage. It's not sustainable to allow exactly all speech. Although I mostly agree, I just wanted to make explicit that nuance.
For example, incitement to violence
GP brought up people being jailed for social media posts, but didn't reference any specifically. In the handful of cases I found via a web search, the charges were related to inciting violence.
GP also brought up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 30 reads:
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
When one exercising a freedom restricts another's ability to exercise theirs, it is reasonable to expect courts to get involved to sort it out.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#77I 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…
[dead]
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#78Several 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 is on each individual to inform themselves, and to decide what to believe and what to disregard. That's where the conundrum lies, requiring individual responsibility for protecting a whole society of potential bad actors using this freedom to break society apart. How is it solved? No one knows, what we know is that relying on individuals to each act on their own to solve it won't work, it never works, we also se…
[deleted]
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
I think the most useful distinction is between “opinions” and “beliefs” rather than opinions and facts. A belief represents your confidence in the truth or falsehood of a statement. While an opinion has no underlying objective reality. “Apples are better than peaches” is an opinion. “More people ate apples than bananas in 2024” is a belief; it may be a true belief or a false belief but there is an answer.
Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content
#80Several 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…
Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.