TheRPGSite

Fan Forums => The RPGPundit's Own Forum => Topic started by: jhkim on January 13, 2021, 04:23:51 PM

Title: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: jhkim on January 13, 2021, 04:23:51 PM
This was a side topic in the political debate, which I thought maybe should be its own topic. Trump had vetoed the defense spending bill to demand that it overturn the Section 230 protection that social media corporations get. In general, the problem is that social media corporations have far too much control over the public debate than many people are comfortable with, but also, many people don't like the idea of regulating them to substitute government control.

From the other thread:

No, online platforms should NOT be responsible for anything anyone posts in their site, and they are NOT good at detecting and shutting down copyrighted material precisely because they consistently shut down fair-use of music and other media. It is not the role of tech companies (or of self-entitled users within their platforms going after people they personally don't like) to make legal determinations about ANYTHING. They're not lawyers, they're not legal scholars or judges or law enforcement and have NO role in the government or legal procedures. These are NOT functions that fall within the purview of fucking monopolistic tech giants. It is not their job and they are not properly equipped to determine whether or not a supposed "tHrEaT oF vIolEnCe" or any other questionable post is legally actionable material. That is the job of the FBI, or equivalent agencies when it comes to users outside of the US. It's supposed to be THEM who make that determination, not our self-appointed tech overlords. That is why section 230 exists, and their insistence on stepping beyond their bounds is precisely why we're on this mess.
What do you think about Trump's calls to remove Section 230 protections for social media?

https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/23/trump-ndaa-veto-section-230/

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on how to reform Section 230, but I do think that it is *not* simply the purview of the FBI and police to handle all lawbreaking. Citizens have a responsibility to report crime and not participate in it.

For example, someone tells me a slanderous rumor about someone else - I then write it up and send it to a newspaper, which prints it. I think both I and the newspaper have some responsibility here - both legally and ethically. Just mindlessly repeating what one is told is wrong. People should be responsible for what they say and publish. That is a standard that newspapers are held to, but social media companies get a special legal loophole.

That said, I'm not eager for social media companies to be the determiners of truth. *If* we give them a legal loophole to avoid responsibility, though, then there need to be strings attached that make the social media more functionally public and allowing of free speech.

To explain a little more about the "public" thing -- I've used the analogy of making a town newspaper to today. In the past, if one had a printing press, one could stand on the street beside the newsstand, and have similar visibility to the main newspaper. However, on the Internet, there is essentially no public space - no public visibility. Visibility depends on private companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter linking to you. If they refuse to post links to you - then no one can find your site.

I'll try to address other points in following posts.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Daztur on January 13, 2021, 11:05:57 PM
Economically it comes down to network effects: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

Even if you hate Facebook and love another site you're going to get a lot more benefit out of using Facebook simply because more people use Facebook. This means that monopolies are a lot stronger with social media than with other stuff. Monopolies or oligopolies are market failures and often call for government intervention.

What could be useful could be a sort of newsreader program for social media that could load posts from your various social media accounts into one feed, that way if people get banned from one service and move to another your newsreader program would just switch over to them without you having to change much.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: EOTB on January 13, 2021, 11:30:49 PM
Protection under policy 230 comes through use of a standard TOS provided within the policy, which may not be modified/customized in any way

The TOS prevents interfering with speech on the platform by its owners or staff unless speech exceeds the limits on speech as set in court precedent, or as otherwise directed by a court in specific circumstances.  (Along with other TOS provisions covering other aspects)

Companies desiring greater control over what appears on their platform do not receive liability protection, but they are free to act as social media companies are acting currently
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: myleftnut on January 14, 2021, 12:47:21 AM
What we should do?  Break them up as monopolies


What we will do?  Cry and whine while they gain more power. 
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 14, 2021, 12:53:53 AM
What we should do?  Break them up as monopolies


What we will do?  Cry and whine while they gain more power.

Yep. I hate to go meta on the thread, but I think it's too late.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: oggsmash on January 14, 2021, 12:58:36 AM
  Well, there are ALOT of town newspapers that are owned by just a couple media companies these days.  I think the end is there must be some sort of restrictions on any monopolies. The main reason is you end up with corporations that have way to much influence on people, and basically own the government.  It seems we are headed towards a cyberpunk dystopia.

  Project Mayhem seems like the only solution likely to do anything to shake the chokehold of big tech.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: EOTB on January 14, 2021, 01:29:11 AM
Repeal the 1996 law allowing consolidation of media, which was previously restricted
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Ghostmaker on January 14, 2021, 08:16:01 AM
Protection under policy 230 comes through use of a standard TOS provided within the policy, which may not be modified/customized in any way

The TOS prevents interfering with speech on the platform by its owners or staff unless speech exceeds the limits on speech as set in court precedent, or as otherwise directed by a court in specific circumstances.  (Along with other TOS provisions covering other aspects)

Companies desiring greater control over what appears on their platform do not receive liability protection, but they are free to act as social media companies are acting currently
The problem is enforcement. There doesn't seem to be any mechanism to bring companies to heel for trying to hide behind Section 230 protections when they clearly don't abide by the strictures.

I absolutely loathe the idea of more regulation, but holy shit, after watching Parler get completely pulverized by that coordinated attack, it's clear this is getting out of control.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: moonsweeper on January 14, 2021, 09:07:44 AM
Repeal the 1996 law allowing consolidation of media, which was previously restricted

I don't know if even that would help at this point.


I absolutely loathe the idea of more regulation, but holy shit, after watching Parler get completely pulverized by that coordinated attack, it's clear this is getting out of control.

One positive (if you want to call it that) is that they can't hide their true nature after crossing the moral event horizon.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: KingCheops on January 14, 2021, 10:50:32 AM
Well the problem circles back around to the issue that the American system has been thoroughly infiltrated and broken.  An impartial Judiciary was supposed to keep the Legislative and Executive branches in check and supposed to curb these sorts of things.  They've been captured by corporations and side with their masters against the people and constitution when the corporations are blatantly abusing the rights and protections of the people.

If you could reasonably expect to have your 1st amendment rights protected by a judge in a case against Twitter then no reform of 230 would be needed.  But Twitter just kills you with its megabucks in a giant PR smear, erasing your ability to interface with modern society, and intimidating/disbarring any lawyer that dares to represent you.  If any of that fails they just shop around for a judge they've purchased.

It'll be interesting to see what happens after the oligarchs get overthrown -- tyranny or a return to republic?
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: jhkim on January 14, 2021, 01:56:58 PM
Well the problem circles back around to the issue that the American system has been thoroughly infiltrated and broken.  An impartial Judiciary was supposed to keep the Legislative and Executive branches in check and supposed to curb these sorts of things.  They've been captured by corporations and side with their masters against the people and constitution when the corporations are blatantly abusing the rights and protections of the people.

If you could reasonably expect to have your 1st amendment rights protected by a judge in a case against Twitter then no reform of 230 would be needed.  But Twitter just kills you with its megabucks in a giant PR smear, erasing your ability to interface with modern society, and intimidating/disbarring any lawyer that dares to represent you.  If any of that fails they just shop around for a judge they've purchased.

I don't think the problem is the judges. The problem is the current law. Under the law, a social media website is a privately-owned service -- no different than this forum. If Pundit wants to ban me or delete my posts, the law supports him. It's his site, and I can't successfully sue him for violating my First Amendment rights if he bans me. It's the same with Twitter. It's a private site, and people can't demand the right to post there - any more than I can post signs on your lawn.

If we want to change that, we have to reform the law in Congress.


Repeal the 1996 law allowing consolidation of media, which was previously restricted

I guess you're talking about the Telecommunications Act of 1996? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

That had a huge number of changes - many of them considered beneficial to competition, though overall some think it was harmful. However, simply disallowing mergers only slows down the trend towards monopolies, it doesn't stop it. If smaller companies are less successful, then the larger companies will just slowly push them out of the market by spending rather than acquiring them. In any case, the 1996 law mostly only applies to television - and the topic is social media.

I think there are changes that can be made to streamline regulations in a way that favors small companies, but it is tricky.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: jhkim on January 14, 2021, 02:52:22 PM
I'm pulling from the other thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/live-coverage-of-rally-for-president-trump-in-dc!-01062021/msg1160612/#msg1160612) to reply here where it's more on topic.

Yes. The Ron Paul ban is bullshit.

In the long run any of that broad deplatforming will survive scrutiny in the courts.

As I noted on this thread, under current law, private providers like Twitter and Facebook aren't legally required to accept everyone. It's their private site, and no one has a First Amendment right to post on their private site - just as they don't have a right to walk into Fox News studios and get on television.

I would lean towards removing Section 230 protection *unless* the provider abides by some sort of free speech provisions similar to what is allowed on public streets. (It's still valid to block or ban based on incitement, obscenity, or possibly other behavior that could get someone kicked off a city street.)

Incidentally, Ron Paul's Facebook seems to be working currently - he just posted, https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul

Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Shasarak on January 14, 2021, 02:57:26 PM
Well the problem circles back around to the issue that the American system has been thoroughly infiltrated and broken.  An impartial Judiciary was supposed to keep the Legislative and Executive branches in check and supposed to curb these sorts of things.  They've been captured by corporations and side with their masters against the people and constitution when the corporations are blatantly abusing the rights and protections of the people.

If you could reasonably expect to have your 1st amendment rights protected by a judge in a case against Twitter then no reform of 230 would be needed.  But Twitter just kills you with its megabucks in a giant PR smear, erasing your ability to interface with modern society, and intimidating/disbarring any lawyer that dares to represent you.  If any of that fails they just shop around for a judge they've purchased.

I don't think the problem is the judges. The problem is the current law. Under the law, a social media website is a privately-owned service -- no different than this forum. If Pundit wants to ban me or delete my posts, the law supports him. It's his site, and I can't successfully sue him for violating my First Amendment rights if he bans me. It's the same with Twitter. It's a private site, and people can't demand the right to post there - any more than I can post signs on your lawn.

If we want to change that, we have to reform the law in Congress.

From what I have heard from Robert Barnes, the problem is the judges in that they are refusing to enforce any of the existing laws in regard to internet companies.

People like Facebook and Twitter are able to get away with things that legacy media like the New York times is not able to.  They are able to make defamatory statements and policies that would get any other company sued.

How is that not a problem with judges.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on January 14, 2021, 03:04:10 PM
How is that not a problem with judges.

The answer is simple. Because the tech giants are currently working in favor of the Democrats, they get a free pass because the Democrats (like all politicians and rich people in general) operate on the logic of "rules for thee but not for me."

That's why we get shit like Chinese govt accounts claiming the Uyghur genocide is feminist and Islamic extremists calling for the destruction of the Israeli state being left alone, while J.K. Rowling gets rape and death threats for saying that womyn and men are biologically different.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Shasarak on January 14, 2021, 03:06:51 PM
How is that not a problem with judges.

The answer is simple. Because the tech giants are currently working in favor of the Democrats, they get a free pass because the Democrats (like all politicians and rich people in general) operate on the logic of "rules for thee but not for me."

That's why we get shit like Chinese govt accounts claiming the Uyghur genocide is feminist and Islamic extremists calling for the destruction of the Israeli state being left alone, while J.K. Rowling gets rape and death threats for saying that womyn and men are biologically different.

It seems to be bipartisan, the Supreme Court has shut down several prominent cases.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: SHARK on January 14, 2021, 03:08:07 PM
Well the problem circles back around to the issue that the American system has been thoroughly infiltrated and broken.  An impartial Judiciary was supposed to keep the Legislative and Executive branches in check and supposed to curb these sorts of things.  They've been captured by corporations and side with their masters against the people and constitution when the corporations are blatantly abusing the rights and protections of the people.

If you could reasonably expect to have your 1st amendment rights protected by a judge in a case against Twitter then no reform of 230 would be needed.  But Twitter just kills you with its megabucks in a giant PR smear, erasing your ability to interface with modern society, and intimidating/disbarring any lawyer that dares to represent you.  If any of that fails they just shop around for a judge they've purchased.

I don't think the problem is the judges. The problem is the current law. Under the law, a social media website is a privately-owned service -- no different than this forum. If Pundit wants to ban me or delete my posts, the law supports him. It's his site, and I can't successfully sue him for violating my First Amendment rights if he bans me. It's the same with Twitter. It's a private site, and people can't demand the right to post there - any more than I can post signs on your lawn.

If we want to change that, we have to reform the law in Congress.

From what I have heard from Robert Barnes, the problem is the judges in that they are refusing to enforce any of the existing laws in regard to internet companies.

People like Facebook and Twitter are able to get away with things that legacy media like the New York times is not able to.  They are able to make defamatory statements and policies that would get any other company sued.

How is that not a problem with judges.

Greetings!

I agree, Shasarak. The censorship and tyranny of the Big Tech companies is disgusting and outrageous--and it also represents a serious threat to freedom. When these companies engage in such policies, mechanisms should be in place for them to be fined severely, and sued into oblivion. Every time, in a blink, so they get it through their heads that they are not elite masters able to control everyone, and silence anyone they don't approve of.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: jhkim on January 14, 2021, 03:23:55 PM
I don't think the problem is the judges. The problem is the current law. Under the law, a social media website is a privately-owned service -- no different than this forum. If Pundit wants to ban me or delete my posts, the law supports him. It's his site, and I can't successfully sue him for violating my First Amendment rights if he bans me. It's the same with Twitter. It's a private site, and people can't demand the right to post there - any more than I can post signs on your lawn.

If we want to change that, we have to reform the law in Congress.

From what I have heard from Robert Barnes, the problem is the judges in that they are refusing to enforce any of the existing laws in regard to internet companies.

People like Facebook and Twitter are able to get away with things that legacy media like the New York times is not able to.  They are able to make defamatory statements and policies that would get any other company sued.

How is that not a problem with judges.

As written, different laws apply to Facebook and Twitter compared to legacy media like the New York Times. The key difference is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Under Section 230, an information service provider like Twitter and Facebook is not treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information posted by a user of the service. It's not that judges are refusing to enforce existing laws - it's that existing laws are different.

But if Section 230 is simply repealed, then Facebook and Twitter will be motivated to be even *more* heavy-handed in moderation and banning, which is what many people are complaining about. I think it would be better to reform it instead.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on January 14, 2021, 03:28:35 PM
The politicians aren't going to do anything because they're money addicts in the pocket of big tech.

I am worried the situation will get much worse before it gets better.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: EOTB on January 14, 2021, 03:37:18 PM


Repeal the 1996 law allowing consolidation of media, which was previously restricted

I guess you're talking about the Telecommunications Act of 1996? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

That had a huge number of changes - many of them considered beneficial to competition, though overall some think it was harmful. However, simply disallowing mergers only slows down the trend towards monopolies, it doesn't stop it. If smaller companies are less successful, then the larger companies will just slowly push them out of the market by spending rather than acquiring them. In any case, the 1996 law mostly only applies to television - and the topic is social media.

I think there are changes that can be made to streamline regulations in a way that favors small companies, but it is tricky.

I responded to a post about newspapers.  Surprised you missed that.

All that has to be done is get rid of cross-media ownership allowed by 1996 bill (and likely other branching bills too, as usual) while also requiring no owner has assets in more than one media market.

It’s not a spend problem.

Social media is not hard to solve either.  Getting people to push the “solve” button is harder.  That’s not the same thing, though
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Brad on January 14, 2021, 03:38:48 PM
As I noted on this thread, under current law, private providers like Twitter and Facebook aren't legally required to accept everyone.

Yes, but better bake that gay wedding cake, right? You're a fucking joke.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Shasarak on January 14, 2021, 03:43:07 PM
I don't think the problem is the judges. The problem is the current law. Under the law, a social media website is a privately-owned service -- no different than this forum. If Pundit wants to ban me or delete my posts, the law supports him. It's his site, and I can't successfully sue him for violating my First Amendment rights if he bans me. It's the same with Twitter. It's a private site, and people can't demand the right to post there - any more than I can post signs on your lawn.

If we want to change that, we have to reform the law in Congress.

From what I have heard from Robert Barnes, the problem is the judges in that they are refusing to enforce any of the existing laws in regard to internet companies.

People like Facebook and Twitter are able to get away with things that legacy media like the New York times is not able to.  They are able to make defamatory statements and policies that would get any other company sued.

How is that not a problem with judges.

As written, different laws apply to Facebook and Twitter compared to legacy media like the New York Times. The key difference is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

Under Section 230, an information service provider like Twitter and Facebook is not treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information posted by a user of the service. It's not that judges are refusing to enforce existing laws - it's that existing laws are different.

But if Section 230 is simply repealed, then Facebook and Twitter will be motivated to be even *more* heavy-handed in moderation and banning, which is what many people are complaining about. I think it would be better to reform it instead.

From your own quote:

The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

Is that what you think has been happening?  Good faith?

Then you will need new laws that judges can then choose to ignore.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: ArrozConLeche on January 14, 2021, 04:39:29 PM
The brainlet above has a point. If a lawsuit can find that that the moderation policies are applied unequally, they could be held liable. I am not sure what that would mean in practical terms other than having to fork some money over and rewriting their TOS.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 14, 2021, 04:49:07 PM
Incidentally, Ron Paul's Facebook seems to be working currently - he just posted, https://www.facebook.com/ronpaul

I don't know if that's better or worse. Like surviving a mob shakedown, at least they're gone, but they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: jhkim on January 14, 2021, 04:55:44 PM
From your own quote:

The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

Is that what you think has been happening?  Good faith?

Then you will need new laws that judges can then choose to ignore.

I'm pretty sure my personal colloquial definition of "good faith" doesn't match the legal meaning. I really don't know what "good faith" would even mean in a practical sense for a giant corporation, much less how judges are supposed to enforce corporations to practice "good faith".

From my personal colloquial definition, I don't think it's possible for any giant corporation to act in "good faith". In order to protect their shareholders, an executive would hire a bunch of lawyers to interpret the law and give recommendations about how to avoid lawsuits. That report from lawyers will be read as some committee oversees writing a policy document. Some corporations are more ethical than others - but they are by their nature big, multi-headed beasts.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: ArrozConLeche on January 14, 2021, 05:23:23 PM
So far as I know, previously banned users have lost their cases in lower courts. The difference is that there hasn't been this unprecedented purging, on this scale in the past. Mayhap, the chances will be higher that someone was wrongfully purged who didn't violate the TOS (i.e. Ron Paul).

I am assuming that the plaintiffs were small fries without a lot of resources (deep pockets of their own or social support behind them).  That could change.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Shasarak on January 14, 2021, 05:31:40 PM
I'm pretty sure my personal colloquial definition of "good faith" doesn't match the legal meaning. I really don't know what "good faith" would even mean in a practical sense for a giant corporation, much less how judges are supposed to enforce corporations to practice "good faith".

You dont know what good faith would mean in a practical sense?

No I guess not.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: HappyDaze on January 14, 2021, 05:43:13 PM
I recall the line about social media being something like "If you're not paying money for it, you're not the customer, you're the product." While it's a very simplified take on it, how would that apply to laws about discrimination as you're not a paying customer (those are the advertisers), you might even just be considered "loitering" on their site?
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on January 14, 2021, 07:25:56 PM
Make political affiliation a protected status like religion, ethnicity, etc. Sue big tech for discriminating against conservatives.

Alternately, conservatives could encourage interracial marriage with non-white people that share conservative values (which is pretty much the overwhelming majority of non-white people), adopt Chrislam (a real religion, btw) in order to make inroads with the Muslim community (who overwhelmingly hold conservative values regardless of who they vote for), etc etc etc and then use the influx of oppression points to sue big tech for racism by using the woke logic against them.

The woke are racist bigots and always will be, as Robin DiAngelo openly admits to, so the most efficient way to beat them at their own game is for conservatives to literally give up whiteness and then sue the woke bigots for their open racism.

(Obviously I'm being farcical here, but in today's clown world I wouldn't be surprised if this strategy actually worked. That's how far this political farce has come.)
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: rawma on January 14, 2021, 07:51:34 PM
Maybe net neutrality would help, at least to make alternatives feasible. Section 230 doesn't seem to be the actual obstacle; being able to sue Twitter would just mean Twitter would either vanish or become very bland to avoid liability. We need a way to break up any monopolies like the telephone one - forcing the monopoly to give access to small competitors. But it's not just the bandwidth that net neutrality might help with, but hosting and access through internet searches.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: consolcwby on January 14, 2021, 09:18:12 PM
I figured I would put this info here instead of my usual bombastic posts. Interesting?
JACK'S EXPLAINATIONS: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690
JAMES' COMING UP NEXT: https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1349792366786453511

Even the European leaders and the president of Mexico called @JACK out for that. So now @Jack after several days is now trying to justify his actions and explain himself. Sounds like he may have gotten a command from his board to clean up the mess. But it may be too late! THIS is something to keep an eye on, imho!

Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on January 14, 2021, 11:37:45 PM
Maybe net neutrality would help, at least to make alternatives feasible. Section 230 doesn't seem to be the actual obstacle; being able to sue Twitter would just mean Twitter would either vanish or become very bland to avoid liability. We need a way to break up any monopolies like the telephone one - forcing the monopoly to give access to small competitors. But it's not just the bandwidth that net neutrality might help with, but hosting and access through internet searches.

It might be a good start.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: consolcwby on January 15, 2021, 06:38:08 PM
Look, this is what you people wanted: Ban everything your masters disagree with, because you disagree with it too. Now, because it may THREATEN YOU, you want to stop it?
BWA-HAHAHAHAHAH!

SORRY RETARDS - NO NORMALIZATION FOR ME!

All you faggot-maggots can go fuck yourselves in digital-hell for ALL I FUCKING CARE!
(but i did warn you... poor poor babies!)
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Null42 on January 29, 2021, 07:43:21 AM
How practical is a boycott? They shut Parler down...
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: oggsmash on January 29, 2021, 09:20:35 AM
After the stock wars going on, and big tech moving in very fast at the command of the white house and big finance allies, it is looking more and more like Project Mayhem is going to end up being an actual solution to this mess.   I look at it a couple of ways, something like that is likely to hurt people who are not in their intention day to day malicious.  But as the philosophers of the movie "Clerks" discussed, if you choose to work on the deathstar for Lord Vader and the Empire, can you really be that salty if it gets blown up?
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Spinachcat on January 29, 2021, 05:18:16 PM
The solution for social media is simple.
Choose to be a publisher or a platform.
Act accordingly, and if you violate that, get legally hammered.

It's not rocket science if you support free speech. 

But what if somebody says something that offends me???
Pick one:
A) Avoid the platforms and stick to the publishers where all speech is edited / moderated / censored.
B) Grow a pair and stay on the platforms.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on January 29, 2021, 09:54:26 PM
The solution for social media is simple.
Choose to be a publisher or a platform.
Act accordingly, and if you violate that, get legally hammered.

It's not rocket science if you support free speech. 

But what if somebody says something that offends me???
Pick one:
A) Avoid the platforms and stick to the publishers where all speech is edited / moderated / censored.
B) Grow a pair and stay on the platforms.
C) Politely inform them that they offended you and ask them to be more sensitive in the future
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Kyle Aaron on January 30, 2021, 07:32:16 AM
It's simple, but not easy: give people ownership of their own data. Currently all my data - age, gender, location, profession, my browsing habits, etc - are given straight over to social media without monetary compensation, and they then sell this data off in the form of targeted advertising.

Historically people were paid to do marketing surveys, etc. So: give people legal ownership of their data. When I sign up for social media, I should be able to go through and tick boxes to rent them my data - and the more data I'm willing to share with them, the more they have to pay me.

This would solve most privacy concerns.

This would have flow-on effects to the censorship concerns. Social media companies would then decide themselves how they want to police their sites. If I'm running a social media company and paying for your data, I am effectively paying for your presence on my site. I will then make a rational decision as to whether your presence is worth what I'm paying for it. Of course, if i kick you off and stop paying you, then I can no longer use your data.

Thus if I as a social media company wish to exclude about one-half the adult citizenry (such as FB excluding conservatives, and Parler excluding lefties), this will limit the value of the data I have to sell to advertisers.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Pat on February 04, 2021, 10:41:35 AM
Here's one approach:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9218405/Florida-governor-Ron-DeSantis-declares-war-big-tech-cartels.html

The governor of Florida is trying to get a bill passed that will fine big tech companies $100,000/day if they deplatform a political candidate.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: zircher on February 04, 2021, 11:58:57 AM
That works for me.  Hit them in the wallet to get their attention if that is what is needed for them to play fair.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: moonsweeper on February 04, 2021, 02:48:04 PM
Here's one approach:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9218405/Florida-governor-Ron-DeSantis-declares-war-big-tech-cartels.html

The governor of Florida is trying to get a bill passed that will fine big tech companies $100,000/day if they deplatform a political candidate.
I do like the idea, but...

The problem is, it won't even phase them.  If they only target a few important ones it won't matter.
Say 10 candidates for 30 days...$30 million in fines...Amazon made $3.3 billion net in Q4 of 2019...they won't even blink with that as a deterrent.

...although it does work as a revenue boost for the state.

They need to be hit with the FEC violations for in-kind contribution but that won't happen.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Shasarak on February 04, 2021, 03:09:15 PM
The governor of Florida is trying to get a bill passed that will fine big tech companies $100,000/day if they deplatform a political candidate.

They dont even need to deplatform people when they can just crush them under the algorithm.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: jhkim on February 04, 2021, 03:58:40 PM
It's simple, but not easy: give people ownership of their own data. Currently all my data - age, gender, location, profession, my browsing habits, etc - are given straight over to social media without monetary compensation, and they then sell this data off in the form of targeted advertising.

Historically people were paid to do marketing surveys, etc. So: give people legal ownership of their data. When I sign up for social media, I should be able to go through and tick boxes to rent them
my data - and the more data I'm willing to share with them, the more they have to pay me.

That's the idea behind the EU's "right to be forgotten" laws. By allowing people to take back their data, it in principle allows them to demand more money or services in exchange for their data. They own their data, and can take it back or sell it. The problem is that right now, the market price for personal data is quite low - effectively free. People are happy to give away personal data in exchange for free services. Still, I think "right to be forgotten" is important and could be strengthened by making it easier to be forgotten. Also, forcing privacy to be the default - and collecting personal data to be an explicit transaction.


This would have flow-on effects to the censorship concerns. Social media companies would then decide themselves how they want to police their sites. If I'm running a social media company and paying for your data, I am effectively paying for your presence on my site. I will then make a rational decision as to whether your presence is worth what I'm paying for it. Of course, if i kick you off and stop paying you, then I can no longer use your data.

Thus if I as a social media company wish to exclude about one-half the adult citizenry (such as FB excluding conservatives, and Parler excluding lefties), this will limit the value of the data I have to sell to advertisers.

For the most part, companies don't care about personal data of people who aren't using the product. The value of the personal data is in *combination* with the eyeballs, because it lets them sell more targeted ads. If they can't sell ads because the person isn't using them, then the personal data isn't worth much - though they will happily sell it for cheap to third parties.

We may well evolve to have dual sets of social media companies - just like traditional media companies now specialize in left-leaning (Washington Post) and right-leaning (Breitbart). I don't know if that will change the bigger picture though. If they have to pay more for data, they'll just try even harder to make their products addictive -- luring people in with outrage and clickbait.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Pat on February 04, 2021, 04:34:10 PM
The problem is that right now, the market price for personal data is quite low - effectively free. People are happy to give away personal data in exchange for free services.
That's not true. I'm not going to quote a specific number because it's been several years since I've been involved, but there's a huge market for personal data, and companies regularly pay non-trivial amounts per person. The problem is similar to one of the core problems with healthcare -- the costs are hidden from the end user.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: jhkim on February 04, 2021, 05:01:44 PM
The problem is that right now, the market price for personal data is quite low - effectively free. People are happy to give away personal data in exchange for free services.
That's not true. I'm not going to quote a specific number because it's been several years since I've been involved, but there's a huge market for personal data, and companies regularly pay non-trivial amounts per person. The problem is similar to one of the core problems with healthcare -- the costs are hidden from the end user.

I don't think you're actually disagreeing that people are happy to give away their own personal data in exchange for free services. When companies buy personal data, they're buying aggregated and digested personal data of many users. It's the data collection and formatting that they're paying for.

Generally, users can avoid collecting personal data - for example, by using incognito mode on their browser. But then they don't get to the sites and services that they want that way, so they are willing to go ahead and give up the personal data.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Pat on February 04, 2021, 05:52:17 PM
The problem is that right now, the market price for personal data is quite low - effectively free. People are happy to give away personal data in exchange for free services.
That's not true. I'm not going to quote a specific number because it's been several years since I've been involved, but there's a huge market for personal data, and companies regularly pay non-trivial amounts per person. The problem is similar to one of the core problems with healthcare -- the costs are hidden from the end user.

I don't think you're actually disagreeing that people are happy to give away their own personal data in exchange for free services. When companies buy personal data, they're buying aggregated and digested personal data of many users. It's the data collection and formatting that they're paying for.

Generally, users can avoid collecting personal data - for example, by using incognito mode on their browser. But then they don't get to the sites and services that they want that way, so they are willing to go ahead and give up the personal data.
I'm disagreeing with the part I quoted. I said nothing about whether people are happy. You have some idea of the general issues, but you clearly don't have any experience with the ecosystem of companies buying and selling personal data or how tracking works, so some of the details are misleading or even wrong. For instance, incognito mode doesn't really do anything except hide what web sites you visit from other users of the same computer. All the sites you visit still track you, because they can do that without cookies.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Spinachcat on February 04, 2021, 10:47:54 PM
C) Politely inform them that they offended you and ask them to be more sensitive in the future

Fuck you and your sensitivity, both now and in the future.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Spinachcat on February 04, 2021, 10:58:12 PM
They dont even need to deplatform people when they can just crush them under the algorithm.

True, but they love removing wrongthinkers as a show of virtue.

The only way forward is a strict separation of Publishers vs. Platforms. But that's not happening under the Xiden regime. If anything, Big Tech will be given more powers to crackdown on wrongthink until places like Gab will have to exist only on the dark web.

I won't be surprised when Zucky & Osama Bin Dorsey write the new section 230 language to require every online site, domain registrar, and hosting service to remove "hate speech" and "misinformation" when notified of its existence.
 
Posting how the election was stolen will be treated the same as posting child porn.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: KingCheops on February 05, 2021, 10:31:14 AM
Posting how the election was stolen will be treated the same as posting child porn.

That means it's totally A-Okay to post about the election being stolen because Jack and Twitter have exactly ZERO problem with Child Porn.  MAPs are just misunderstood... you fucking bigot!  They don't actually exploit children...they just choke the snake looking at images of OTHER people abusing children.  Totally victimless!
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Mjollnir on February 26, 2021, 02:08:38 AM
What we should do?  Break them up as monopolies


What we will do?  Cry and whine while they gain more power.

Mandate that they uphold the First Amendment or their executives go to prison.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: RandyB on February 26, 2021, 08:59:03 AM
What should we do?

delenda est

Beyond their conduct, the services they offer are clearly a net negative. We would be better off without those services at all.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Brad on February 26, 2021, 10:09:01 AM
What should we do?

delenda est

Beyond their conduct, the services they offer are clearly a net negative. We would be better off without those services at all.


100% true. For all the benefits that social media offers, it has such a huge downside that it might actually be the most dangerous tool used to bring down Western civilization. No hyperbole. What we need is a massive internet blackout for about a month or two and I guarantee 95% of the alleged problems that exist in the Western world would disappear.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: RandyB on February 26, 2021, 11:24:59 AM
What should we do?

delenda est

Beyond their conduct, the services they offer are clearly a net negative. We would be better off without those services at all.


100% true. For all the benefits that social media offers, it has such a huge downside that it might actually be the most dangerous tool used to bring down Western civilization. No hyperbole. What we need is a massive internet blackout for about a month or two and I guarantee 95% of the alleged problems that exist in the Western world would disappear.

Yes.

Social media capitalized on previous generations of undermining Western Civilization, and it has been even more devastating thereby.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: jhkim on February 26, 2021, 03:21:58 PM
100% true. For all the benefits that social media offers, it has such a huge downside that it might actually be the most dangerous tool used to bring down Western civilization. No hyperbole. What we need is a massive internet blackout for about a month or two and I guarantee 95% of the alleged problems that exist in the Western world would disappear.

Social media capitalized on previous generations of undermining Western Civilization, and it has been even more devastating thereby.

I agree that social media is a net negative, but I also think that people of all political views are still inclined to use it. (Also, taking out the Internet as a whole would also collapse a huge amount of useful communication.) If I could wave a magic wand and have people not use Twitter and Facebook and similar, I would totally do that. But magic doesn't exist.

Taking the Internet down or making Twitter illegal isn't a workable approach. We need a cultural shift for people to not *want* to use it. I wonder if education should play a part here, and kids should have school classes that cover responsible media use. Because the trend definitely seems to be even more social media use in younger generations.
Title: Re: What to do about social media corporations?
Post by: Brad on February 27, 2021, 02:30:38 PM
100% true. For all the benefits that social media offers, it has such a huge downside that it might actually be the most dangerous tool used to bring down Western civilization. No hyperbole. What we need is a massive internet blackout for about a month or two and I guarantee 95% of the alleged problems that exist in the Western world would disappear.

Social media capitalized on previous generations of undermining Western Civilization, and it has been even more devastating thereby.

I agree that social media is a net negative, but I also think that people of all political views are still inclined to use it. (Also, taking out the Internet as a whole would also collapse a huge amount of useful communication.) If I could wave a magic wand and have people not use Twitter and Facebook and similar, I would totally do that. But magic doesn't exist.

Taking the Internet down or making Twitter illegal isn't a workable approach. We need a cultural shift for people to not *want* to use it. I wonder if education should play a part here, and kids should have school classes that cover responsible media use. Because the trend definitely seems to be even more social media use in younger generations.

LOL why would government run schools want to get rid of their most effective brainwashing tool?