• 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle

  • I’m okay with algorithms not recommending certain posts. I just don’t like shadowbans because the platform is lying to the user, the user interface is essentially telling the user “your post is available for viewing and is being treated like any other post” when it really isn’t.

    There’s a balance between the free speech of individuals and the free speech of the company. I think a fair balance between the two is, once a company is big enough to control a significant percentage of the entire nation’s discourse, the company at least has to be up front and avoid deceptive practices like shadow-banning. (This should only apply to large companies, once a company is large enough it has a responsibility to society.)


  • Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly

    Often freedom of speech is a moral ideal, a moral aspiration, and dismissing it on legal grounds is missing the point.

    If I say “people should have a right to healthcare”, and you respond “people do not have a legal right to healthcare”, you are correct, but you have missed the point. If I say people should have freedom of speech and you respond that the first amendment doesn’t apply to Facebook, you are right, but have again missed the point.

    In general, when people advocate for any change, they can be countered with “well, the law doesn’t require that”. Yes, society currently works the way the law says it should. But what we’re talking about is how society should work and how the law should change.


  • A problem is that social media websites are simultaneously open platforms with Section 230 protections, and also publishers who have free speech rights. Those are contradictory, so which is it?

    Perhaps @rottingleaf was speaking morally rather than legally. For example, I might say “I believe everyone in America should have access to healthcare”; if you respond “no, there is no right to healthcare” you would be right, but you missed my point. I was expressing an moral aspiration.

    I think shadowbans are a bad mix of censorship and hard to detect. Morally, I believe they should be illegal. If a company wants to ban someone, they can be up front about it with a regular ban; make it clear what they are doing. To implement this legally, we could alter Section 230 protections so that they don’t apply to companies performing shadowbans.






  • Yeah, parents are getting ruined by social media algorithms too.

    Our government seems to be moving towards an “we only care about the children, but everyone, including adults, upload your government papers” approach.

    Y’all got any of those protections for adults? I remember reading regulations that companies couldn’t show children advertisements. Can I have some of that regulation too?

    I just can’t stop being cynical that there is little focus on homeless or underpaid adults, or other adult issues, but the one problem we’re focused on just so happens to include everyone giving up anonymity on the Internet.

    We do need to help kids with social media, but there’s a lot of other challenges they will soon face as adults that we’re ignoring.