How Not to Respond to Twitter and Facebook's Alarming Censorship of the New York Post

submitted by Drewski from fee.org

all 18 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Some on the Right smirk as Sen. Josh Hawley pens legislation to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or to ban “infinite scrolling” on social media apps.

I believe an infinite scrolling ban pertains to social media addiction, not their political bias. Infinite scrolling is used to keep people on their platform longer (since there's no definitive end), thus banning it would allow people more control over how long they use a platform.

Repealing §230 is a terrible idea, I agree. We don't want Saidit being sued because some troll said something mean. (They don't even need to win, a lot of people sue just to waste someone's time or incur legal costs.)

Perhaps it could be re-worded, but really the answer is simple: enforce the law. §230 only applies to platforms, not publishers, so when a company starts removing content in bad faith, they don't get its protection.

But protecting a free and open internet means not using punitive regulations or policies to hamstring social networks because of the scandal of the day.

Punitive regulations and policies are what we need. These companies must be punished for their actions. Rehabilitation can work, and it's something we need to do more, but punishment works too — and you can't just do one and exclude the other.

Rehabilitation without punishment doesn't provide enough risk, and punishment without rehabilitation doesn't provide enough reward. We need good behavior to be more rewarding, and bad behavior to be more risky. It's simple economics: people will do what's less risky and more rewarding.

Big Tech isn’t powerful because it has money, but because it has delivered superior products, those that have left platforms such as AOL, Myspace, and Yahoo in their wake.

This simply isn't true. Firstly, having more money inherently allows them to provide a better product: they can pay more developers, technicians, designers, marketers, etc. You got'o have money to make money, as they say.

Second, platforms that provide better products, such as Saidit and Gab, aren't as powerful as their competitors because that's where all the people are. It's not like these platforms are missing any deal-breaking features. People just don't know about them or care enough to make the switch.

The powerful platforms of today can afford to comply with cumbersome rules, while new market entrants cannot.

Yes, but we need certain minimum requirements that all platforms must meet. In the case of censorship, it's actually easier for companies to just not do it. So the argument doesn't really apply here, though they do have a good point: Congress would probably just help these companies by passing counter-productive legislation that does more harm to small businesses than big tech.

But policy "solutions" dreamed up by technologically illiterate bureaucrats and power-hungry politicians would no doubt be even worse.

Yes, I agree. We need more people in government who not only know how technology works, but also who genuinely want to make a real, positive impact. We simply don't have that. The answer is to vote for someone else: not a D or an R.

[–]Questionable 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

§230 only applies to platforms, not publishers, so when a company starts removing content in bad faith, they don't get its protection.

This should not be hard for anyone to understand. Articles such as the one posted here, are only meant to confuse the issue, and allow for companies to continue their abusive practices, censoring people under the guise of freedom of speech. This article calling for continued or even heightened protections for these multi-billion dollar monopolies, that control all of social media is absurd.

u/Drewski? What the fuck man, the companies in question here do not need protection from censorship and prosecution, they are censorship, and are in need of regulation and prosecution.

Or in this case, destroying corporations committing direct acts of sedition, and breaking them up, for clear acts of targeted politics for financial gains. Corporations are not people. Though the people who run these corporations are, and are acting in bad faith. They need to be financially penalized, and face jail time. They are actively, and intentionally, participating in threats against our government, and the constitution.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree 100%.

I'd even go as far as to charge them with treason or terrorism, since they support terrorist organizations such as Antifa and BLM.

[–]Drewski[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

u/Drewski? What the fuck man, the companies in question here do not need protection from censorship and prosecution, they are censorship, and are in need of regulation and prosecution.

No, they don't need protection from censorship. Yes, they should be shielded from prosecution from being liable for the content of their users. This affects all social media including alternate platforms such as Saidit. This attack on Section 230 is a Trojan horse in the guise of promoting equality and free speech, and would give the government even more control over online speech.

Censorship on major tech platforms is a big issue, so stop using the tech monopolies that censor. Don't give the government the power to regulate all of these platforms and expect that to fix the problem.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, they should be shielded from prosecution from being liable for the content of their users.

Except publishers, which include Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. If they want to curate the content on their website to adhere to their own political beliefs, they're entitled to do that, but they aren't entitled to immunity from liability for that content.

This attack on Section 230 is a Trojan horse in the guise of promoting equality and free speech, and would give the government even more control over online speech.

Yeah, I don't think it's fair to attack §230 when the fault lies with the government not properly enforcing it. I still do believe these companies are guilty, though, since they aren't social media platforms, but instead publishers.

so stop using the tech monopolies that censor.

This is the flawed logic upon which rests the failed ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism. These materialist ideologies believe that every person must be their own leader, and that every person will, in every case, make the best choice for their own well-being, and promotes the untrue, utopian ideal that each person is perfectly-informed.

None of these are true. There will always be followers and leaders, those below to obey, and those above to command. Even when hierarchy is abolished, it shall be reinstated through the mechanisms of human interaction. Where there are not politicians, there shall be celebrities.

People also don't always pursue the option that benefits themselves the most. They often do, but there are many other factors that come into play, such as the level to which they are informed (which can never be 100% for every member) as well as emotions and delusions.

[–]Drewski[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Tyranny of the majority and control through social conformity is also a problem, but not one that can (or should) be addressed by government control. Just because people may not make the right choices for themselves, does not mean they should not be allowed to do so. I'd rather make my own mistakes (or not) than have them made for me by some "benevolent" bureaucrat.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Tyranny of the majority and control through social conformity is also a problem, but not one that can (or should) be addressed by government control.

We have methods to combat this. For example: this is why the Senate exists: as a counterbalance to the House, which may at times ignore the smaller states in favor of the larger ones.

Just because people may not make the right choices for themselves, does not mean they should not be allowed to do so.

Yes, except in extreme cases that impact others. Furthermore, we must guide those below us towards the correct outcome, not forcefully, but gently. If they wish to not follow the leadership, that is their choice.

I'd rather make my own mistakes (or not) than have them made for me by some "benevolent" bureaucrat.

Yes, but some people would rather the latter. Particularly the Workers, who are inclined against making decisions, and instead wish to simply contribute to society and live a happy life. It is up to the higher classes to bear the burden of decision-making.

You're probably Consumer- or Localist-class (small business owners), thus why you're more inclined towards decision-making. Even then, many Consumers aren't too keen on making decisions, usually only doing so through their spending choices.

It's not that certain classes shouldn't be given more power, but rather than certain classes are more or less inclined to take that power. We should allow to each an equal level of control and opportunity, and allow their inclination to properly place them.

[–]SaidOverRed 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

We need more political ownership over 230 changes, not less.

Banning infinite scrolling is one (random) suggested change. What are 4 other specifics?

[–]starblue 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I really don't understand the big deal about infinite scrolling. But the publisher vs. platform issue is the one big thing. If the start behaving like a publisher, then they lose platform protections. Seems pretty straightforward, and its much easier and more objective than attempting to fact check data.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Infinite scrolling pertains to social media addiction. The idea is that banning it would make it easier for people to log off when they want to, instead of having no definitive end and being able to just scroll for hours and hours.

[–]starblue 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Seems like a nanny-state thing to do to me. Grown adults shouldn't need this kind of coddling.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It depends on what you believe the purpose of the state to be. I see the state as the manifestation of the Nation, and the Nation as a family, thus believe that it should perform a more care-giving role.

Libertarians, on the other hand, see the state as a business, and believe it's only purpose is to protect private property.

And then you have Communists who think the state should do absolutely everything imaginable. They see it as the manifestation of the working-class, thus think it should be involved with everything on the workers's behalf.

[–]starblue 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And then you have Anti-Federalists and Originalists like me who believe the Federal Government has a limited on to protect the nation, and make sure States play fair with one another, and that the States should have the Powers to customise their laws for their own people without federal government interfering beyond the bare minimum (as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution).

But you have good basic explanations of those major categories.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I actually agree with you on this. I don't think the federal government should be strong — I'm actually in support of a Confederation — I just believe that the states themselves, or the regions whenever each state consents, should play a direct role in governing the lives of their citizens. The US are just too big to have one central government.

There are some things I believe the federal government should do, but generally it should have the consent of 2/3 of the states to pass new laws. Furthermore, state constitutions should have precedence over federal laws, but not over the federal constitution, and state laws should be below federal laws unless the law itself allows exemption.

[–]starblue 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Now you're talking! This is the kind of stuff I believe we could get into a robust debate over, but in general, if we had this ideal, we would be in much better a state - no pun intended.

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good luck getting them to unban and unshadowban every honest conservative they've picked a fight with

[–]flugegeheimen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Big Tech isn’t powerful because it has money, but because it has delivered superior products, those that have left platforms such as AOL, Myspace, and Yahoo in their wake.

Comcast isn't big because it has money, but because it has delivered superior services, those that have left providers such as Google Fiber in their wake.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bland products win over "superior" products every time.

Just look at the differences between Facebook and MySpace, literally the biggest difference is that Facebook is more boring and impersonal. It looks neater, easier and more professional because it does less and offers less. You have to fit yourself to it.