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

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/most-people-want-platforms-not-governments-be-responsible-moderating-content

by giuliomagnifico • 10 months ago

79 145 10 months ago

reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk

jgeada3• 10 months ago

I think this might be a misinterpretation of the word "responsible".

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".

Government sets the rules, and if someone fail to comply, there are consequences against those responsible. Government isn't responsible, it is holding them responsible.

goalieca• 10 months ago

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?

Xylakant7• 10 months ago

Are you implying that there’s no posts on social media platforms that are plain and verifiably wrong and that any such decision needs to be made by a government created ministry of truth? There’s no middle ground? Maybe such a thing like a court?

If I state here plain and as a fact that golieca eats little children for breakfast and slaughters kittens for fun, could @dang not look at both a statement from you and one from me and see if I have sufficient proof?

jonathanstrange2• 10 months ago

Judges. The question is mainly whether there should be some rules independent of those of the companies that the content must follow, and people who feel treated badly need to get their rights against those rules in a civil lawsuit, or whether more should be allowed first until there is a civil or penal lawsuit that might stop it. (It is already a mixture of both so it's a matter of degree.)

I personally prefer an emphasis on the first solution because it's better to combat the widespread lack of civility in social media, which I believe to harm society substantially, but I also understand the people who prefer the second model.

tiahura4• 10 months ago

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.

dfxm122• 10 months ago

At a minimum, keep in mind, perjury, libel and slander get litigated in courts of law. No ministry of truth is required in these cases.

LeonB4• 10 months ago

A “ministry of truth” would (I assume) be a part of the executive branch of government.

Whereas the creation of laws and the interpretation of laws are powers that the executive branch does not have, and are held separately by the legislative and judicial branches.

In a, well, y’know “functioning” democracy. Apparently.

nemo44x• 10 months ago

This is exactaly right. To silence even offensive ideas is to appoint someone as the final arbiter of truth — something history shows to be dangerous. Truth doesn’t need protection — it needs criticism. Censoring ‘offensive’ or ‘sacred’ ideas kills the very process (open debate) that lets society correct errors & find truth, even if it's uncomfortable. Everthing else is dogma.

mrguyorama4• 10 months ago

The US already has that. What do you think the courts do?

People complaining about building a "ministry of truth" in countries with anything resembling a functioning legal system are just as clueless as people who cry about "government death panels" while private insurance already denies people lifesaving medicine right freaking now

chii2• 10 months ago

If a platform lies or spread malicious content

but if the platform didnt go verify all content placed by users on it, does it count as "spreading" it?

I mean, there's nothing stopping anyone from publishing a book which spreads lies and malicious content - book banning is looked down upon these days. Why are the publishers not asked to be held to this same level? What makes a web platform different?

philipallstar2• 10 months ago

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.

matwood2• 10 months ago

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?

oscaracso2• 10 months ago

Social media platforms do not operate like the mail or telecommunication infrastructure. Suppose that a clique of high-follower verified users on X formed a private discord channel in which they coördinate false but plausible moral panic news events in order to foment spontaneous violent acts against minorities (for added effect, perhaps by pooling their resources into generative AI tools), and that both platforms refused to address this by shutting down the channel, banning the users, or even reducing their reach on the timeline. While there remain reasonable arguments against governing this bad behavior through legislation, it is plain that the social media platforms would be implicated in the negative outcomes of the behavior to a greater degree than a mail carrier.

matwood2• 10 months ago

Yeah, the US in particular functions on liability. If changes are made that make companies liable for the externalities from their platforms, they will almost instantly find ways to address the issues.

micromacrofoot• 10 months ago

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 festering trash heaps. Additionally, they're complete cowards in the face of their nihilistic shareholders.

floundy5• 10 months ago

Turns out that echo chambers with manufactured consensus are quite profitable.

ModernMech• 10 months ago

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.

The "but" is really throwing me for a loop, because to me it feels like one follows from the other.

phkahler• 10 months ago

> 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.

tycho-newman• 10 months ago

We only tolerate totalitarianism in the private sector!

exabrial• 10 months ago

I’d like governments to instead enforce monopoly laws and the FTC to sue for crappy business practices. I don’t want them playing speech police.

LeonB4• 10 months ago

Yes, absolutely.

The survey could say, “given that the existence of corporate monopolies demonstrates weak and non functional governments, should governments a) cede more power to the monopolies, or b) pretend to claw power back from the monopolies?”

brap• 10 months ago

Unpopular opinion, but what about our own responsibility to choose better platforms?

artyom• 10 months ago

Second this. The article reads as a false dichotomy of choosing a "lesser evil" master while remaining a slave. Vote with your engagement (?)

Xylakant7• 10 months ago

What if someone posts slander and libelous statements on a platform that you do not frequent? What choice do you have? What recourse do you have if someone posts something along this proud OpenAI demo with your face on truth.social? https://bsky.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:j5fb...

_heimdall4• 10 months ago

There are legal avenues in many jurisdictions for slander or libel. Ultimately, though, who cares what someone posts about you and how could we expect some arbiter to decide exactly what is okay to post, especially when the concern is potential libel?

floundy5• 10 months ago

Actually, no, reasonable people do not want either platforms or governments to moderate content.

Who defines what "problematic content" is?

Xylakant7• 10 months ago

You are posting on a platform that has a moderation policy and takes active measures to to moderate away problematic content. The guidelines are here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and they clearly state what content is off limits.

_heimdall4• 10 months ago

We're posting on a platform that has a moderation policy defined by the private entity hosting the service, not the government.

YC is free to censor on their own platform, the only issue is when the government is involved in censoring speech.

floundy5• 10 months ago

How is this a "gotcha" when I'm on the internet I'm being forced to use? I pick the most agreeable platforms. I like that HN filters out politics, sports, and celebrities, it's more like a themed forum than an open board. HN doesn't deem these topics as "problematic", simply as off-topic.

Anyway my point was "problematic content" is often used as a buzzword by censorship happy people, and ends up being synonymous with "something I disagree with." We have just literally seen the real life consequences of pushing for censorship — that it will eventually be used against speech that one agrees with — and nobody quite seems to care.

oytis• 10 months ago

Unmoderated platforms are pretty much useless. Having said that, I'd prefer governments to stay away from either moderating or forcing platforms to moderate content

floundy5• 10 months ago

Perhaps there's simply no middle ground between something like Voat which turned into a gathering place of bonafide racists, and something like Reddit which is essentially just a confirmation bias hugbox. If there is, it's certainly not a profitable product.

IAmBroom8• 10 months ago

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.

tiahura4• 10 months ago

Two takeaways: 1. As per headline, rejection of state censorship. 2. Platforms should be responsible for user posts.

"Q17D. In your opinion, should each of the following platforms be held responsible or not responsible for showing potentially false information that users post? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000."

Around the world, appx. 70% said yes. The rub, of course, is coming up with a framework. The poll suggests that the DMCA approach of no duty is widely unpopular. However, strict liability would ensure that that these industries go away, and even a reasonableness standard seems like a headache.

gmuslera• 10 months ago

There is a problem of agency here.

Assuming that we are talking about platform of user-generated content, should the users be punished by what they post? The kind of punishment can do the government is different from what a platform can do, and somewhat they want to feel free to express themselves. This are factors taken into account by users at making decisions.

In the other hand, what the platform does (through algorithms, weights, etc) at selecting, prioritizing and making visible content by users and users themselves is something happening at platform level. There the government may have something to do. And here we are talking about the platform decisions.

There is a middle ground on coordinating/playing with the algorithms to make your content visible by users or groups that control in a way or another many users accounts. There might be some government and platform involvement in this case.

_heimdall4• 10 months ago

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 that's punishment at all, people don't have to post there and there's no use of force or detention being threatened.

chii2• 10 months ago

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). And there's no secondary public square due to the network effect.

bradley13• 10 months ago

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 disregard.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "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."

It doesn't say "if your opinion is approved by the government". It doesn't say "if your opinion is correct". It makes no exceptions whatsoever, and that is what we need to strive for.

kode95• 10 months ago

Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand.

There are only a few European countries that jail people for wrongspeak, and I can't think of a single one of those countries whose population in general is in favor of such laws.

gwd6• 10 months ago

It doesn't say "if your opinion is correct".

Opinions cannot be right or wrong.

It makes no exceptions whatsoever, and that is what we need to strive for.

It certainly does. See libel / defamation / perjury / false representation / fraud / false advertising / trademark infringement.

xienze2• 10 months ago

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!

yupyupyups• 10 months ago

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.

dfxm122• 10 months ago

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.

soco• 10 months ago

Worth mentioning exactly here the paradox of Popper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance sooo... what should we do about it, here and now? Because we are closing to need a decision. And let me remind you that people do get fined or jailed sometimes for making mistakes or lying.

pickledoyster• 10 months ago

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 safety valve for the society.

aydyn2• 10 months ago

Silencing speech IS the oppressive regime.

alphazard• 10 months ago

not as an oppressive tool, but as a safety valve for the society.

This strikes me as just incorrect. What example from history shows totalitarianism being successfully avoided because of controls on speech?

The first item in the totalitarian playbook is controlling speech, and there are historical examples of that in every single totalitarian regime that I'm aware of.

wakawaka282• 10 months ago

Nope, that's giving them too much credit. Censorship is oppressive except in very narrow circumstances. Free speech is actually the safety valve in society. Censorship is one of the hallmarks of a tyrannical regime, and is incompatible with democracy.

croes2• 10 months ago

"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

piva00• 10 months ago

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.

txrx00006• 10 months ago

How is it solved?

It is solved by a democratic system that defines truth as "mutually observable phenomena", defines good as "the wishes of the people", and allows individuals to engage in free dialogue as a replacement for violence.

Good outnumbers bad, so the good will win, unless both sides think they're good in a 50/50 split.

This can happen even in that ideal society, because 50% of the individuals will eventually decide to have fundamentally different goals as the other 50%. In which case, I don't think we should hold that society together by force, but rather provide a mechanism for it to peacefully split into two, precisely to uphold the democratic principle of respecting the wishes of every individual.

Suppose half of those people are mistaken in a collective delusion, and their goals are in actuality aligned with the other half, but the other half have just failed so spectacularly at enlightening them (or perhaps the delusional half are so spectacularly delusional that they're impossible to enlighten). In this rare case of a perfect failure, they will quickly realize after the split and want to get back together, because reality is a harsh judge, and its judgements are ultimate.

greenavocado• 10 months ago

Telegram founder Pavel Durov on Sunday accused France of asking him to remove some Moldovan channels from the social media platform ahead of the country’s presidential election last year.

In a statement on the Dubai-headquartered company, Durov claimed that the French intelligence services asked him “through an intermediary” to help the Moldovan government to censor “certain Telegram channels” before the vote on Oct. 20, in which incumbent President Maia Sandu secured a second term in office following a runoff held on Nov. 3.

He said a few channels were identified to have violated Telegram’s rules following reviews of the channels concerned and were subsequently removed.

“The intermediary then informed me that, in exchange for this cooperation, French intelligence would ‘say good things’ about me to the judge who had ordered my arrest in August last year,” Durov said, describing this as “unacceptable on several levels.”

“If the agency did in fact approach the judge — it constituted an attempt to interfere in the judicial process. If it did not, and merely claimed to have done so, then it was exploiting my legal situation in France to influence political developments in Eastern Europe — a pattern we have also observed in Romania,” he further said.

Durov also said that Telegram later received a second list of "Moldovan channels," which he noted were “legitimate and fully compliant with our rules,” unlike the initial list.

CONTINUED...

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/telegram-head-accuses-france...

necrobrit2• 10 months ago

Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand.

This argument can be made for government in general, although granted technology does make it easier for a smaller group to overreach. I'm a European and do hear your concern, but I feel comfortable supporting restrictions on speech _as long as_ there is also a functioning and just legal system that those restrictions operate within. Though there does seem to be a worrying trend towards technology bypassing the legal system and just giving enforcement agencies blanket access of late.

We all also have our own cultural biases and blind spots. I offer this not as whataboutism but as a different perspective: I'm _way_ more frightened by the authoritarian police culture (I base this on interactions with the police in a period I lived in the US) in the US than I am of the UK governments internet censorship. The internet censorship could do a lot of harm, but I think not as much potential harm as a large militarised police force willing to bust down doors on command from above.

tsss• 10 months ago

There has never been a functioning and just legal system in the history of mankind. Not to mention that what is "just" is very much up to debate.

epgui2• 10 months ago

Are you talking about moderation or prosecution? You do see the difference right?

ddmma2• 10 months ago

If disinformation would treated as copyrighted content then world would be better place.

kingstnap• 10 months ago

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!

LeonB4• 10 months ago

Interesting point.

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

ddmma2• 10 months ago

I was referring to the fact that disinformation is helping platforms to make traffic and attract profits, is not seen from a negative impact on society. Copyright content is causing losses therefore is taken seriously in al sort or verifications.

ecshafer• 10 months ago

This survey is too vague to be worthwhile. Sure some of these are scary how many people say "yes", but people say yes all of the time to vague sounding pleasantries. When they say "responsible" say specific actions. Should people be arrested for what they post on social media when its an opinion? Should platforms automatically analyze all messages and automatically remove messages that it deems not truthful? Should the platform be liable in court for falsehoods? People will answer very differently to specifics than vagueness.

LeonB4• 10 months ago

Absolutely.

They hand-wave tremendously complex questions, in such a way that the respondent is free to interpret them any way you wish.

A similar survey question might be:

I am thinking of a number. Is it, a) too high or b) too low?

jmyeet• 10 months ago

In the US, this all stems from Section 230 (of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) that provided a safe harbor for companies for user-generated content. There are some requirements for this like a process for legal takedowns. Section 230 is generally a good thing as it was (and is) prohibitively expensive if not outright impossible to monitor every post and every comment.

But what changed in the last two decades or so is the newsfeed as well as other forms of recommendation (eg suggested videos on Youtube). Colloquially we tend to lump all of these together as "the algorithm".

Tech companies have very succcessfully spread the propaganda that even with "the algorithm" they're still somehow "content neutral". If certain topics are pushed to more users because ragebait = engagement then that's just "the algorithm". But who programmed the algorithm? Why? What were the explicit goals? What did and didn't ship to arrive at that behavior?

The truth is that "the algirthm" reflects the wishes of the leaders and shareholders of the company. As such, for purposes of Section 230, it's arguable that such platforms are no longer content neutral.

So what we have in the US is really the worst of both worlds. Private companies are responsible for moderation but they kowtow to the administration to reflect the content the administration wants to push or suppress.

Make no mistake, the only reason Tiktok was banned and is now being sold is because the government doesn't have the same control they have over FB, IG or Twitter.

So a survey of what people want here is kind of meaningless because people just don't understand the question.

tiahura4• 10 months ago

So a survey of what people want here is kind of meaningless because people just don't understand the question.

I think they understand perfectly well. They look at an internet where internet companies aren't held responsible, conclude it's largely corrosive, and prefer a different approach. I'm not sure it's important that they don't understand the elements of a libel claim or that internet companies get a special get of jail free card that traditional media doesn't.

DrScientist• 10 months ago

I think it's a bit more nuanced that this.

Ultimately authors should be held responsible for content - the governments role here is setting the laws, and funding the law enforcement mechanisms ( police and courts etc ), and the platform's role is to enable enforcement ( doing takedowns or enabling tracing of perpetrators ).

Obviously one of the challenges here is the platforms are transnational, and the laws are national - but that's the just a cost of doing business.

However this doesn't absolve the platforms from responsibility for content if they are involved in promoting content. If a platform actively promotes content - then in my view they shift from a common carrier to a publisher and thus all the normal publisher responsibilities apply.

Pretending that it's not possible to be technical responsible for platform amplification is a not the answer. You can't create something that you are responsible for, that creates harm and then claim it's not your problem because you can't fix it.

andrewstuart• 10 months ago

“Think tank”.

markstos• 10 months ago

Moderation is a strength of the fediverse, because it is decentralized, with many moderators making possibly conflicting rules about relatively smaller amounts of content.

Moderators can block individual posts, accounts, or entire instances if they have objectionable alternate rules.

Don't like the moderation on some instance? Move to another.

warkdarrior• 10 months ago

Exactly. And moderators need to be responsible and liable for the content they allow through on their instances.

cptskippy• 10 months ago

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.

IAmBroom8• 10 months ago

It is accountability, but not sufficient to be a significant deterrent.

FarMcKon• 10 months ago

This is a false dichotomy presented to people. By framing this as 'Giant government, or giant business?" you are going to get crap answers.

None of these are one size fits all solutions, and there should be a mix. We have a working patch-work of laws in physical space, for a reason. It allow flexibility, and adjustments as we go, as the world changes. We should extended that to virtual space as well.

Age / Content Labeling and opt-in/ opt-out for some content. Outright ban on other kinds of content. A similar "I sue when you abuse my content" for copyright, impersonation, etc.

One size does not fit all, and is not how the real world works. Online shouldn't work much differently.

em-bee• 10 months ago

the conundrum is that both sides have a bad track record in moderating content. governments in the past have used their power to silence political opponents, and businesses are silencing critical voices and undesirable content because it hurts their bottom line.

neither is acceptable.

the US made a good start by disallowing government censorship completely. europe could do the same, perhaps with a carve out for outright hate speech, and obvious falsehoods like holocaust denial. but these exceptions need to be very clearly defined, which currently is not the case.

what is missing is a restriction on private businesses, to only allow them to moderate content that is obviously illegal or age restricted, or, for topical forums, off topic, for the latter they must make clear which content is on topic.

incomingpain• 10 months ago

Here in Canada, it's sad to watch what's happening in the UK.

In the UK(like OP), they are arresting people for thought crimes. An unexpected consequence of Brexit was the loss of free speech protection of Article 10.

Opinion polling has labour in steady steep decline. Given the unprecedented attack on freedom, presumptive decimation in the next election is guaranteed at this point. There's no future for the labour party beyond 2029, absurd that they would do this to their party unless they had a plan.

You obviously don't play your cards down like they have if you're intending to have a fair election 2029; or one at all.

txrx00006• 10 months ago

Ideally, individuals are the ones responsible for moderating content. All filters should be implemented client-side. A person can have all the freedom to decide what they see, but not what anyone else sees.

The problem with group moderation is that it will form disparate, isolated groups that get larger over time. This gradually reduces the effectiveness of democracy and destroys social cohesion. The people in the same group see other groups as more and more evil as the groups get larger, so they don't talk to eachother as much. The effort required to talk to people in a different group becomes larger as the groups get larger, so fewer and fewer individuals are capable of dialogue, until eventually, there are just two echo chambers that absolutely hate eachother. And what follows is either violence or oppression, or both, because the conflict has reached the government level.

There used to be a cap on practical group size before the Internet (except in rare cases, those become authoritarian states), so this went unnoticed in democratic societies. But now there isn't. We ought to consciously realize that the base unit of a democratic society is an individual, and create policies that enable decisions at the individual level.

We ought to talk to people that we think are evil. And let them talk, too.

epgui2• 10 months ago

To be honest I’m not sure what’s worse. I think I’d rather moderation be a public service than a profit-driven activity.

(Bias: I’m lucky to live in a country that has a relatively good government, so I find it “easy” to imagine that it could work.)

SilentM68• 10 months ago

The problem is that the people who own the platforms, are biased in one direction or the other, and hence influence the platforms to manipulate the platform users. There is no such thing as an unbiased platform or government since the platform owners also influence all governments, schools, and organizations world-wide. I understand it is a difficult concept, but the sooner people realize that they live in a biased society, based on self-interest, the faster they can figure out who to trust or not trust. Sadly, it has taken me more than 40 years to figure this out :(

Cameri• 10 months ago

We want protocols, not platforms.

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

Related Stories