US Supreme Court hears lawsuit about tech censorship

[West]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-debates-biden-administration-outreach-digital-platforms-over-controversial-posts

 

Very interesting time for tech censorship. 

I'm starting to lean more toward some regulation necessary of these major platforms. However, many Americans are already deeply suspicious of any form of government. 

Safety vs autonomy debate. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, West said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-debates-biden-administration-outreach-digital-platforms-over-controversial-posts

 

Very interesting time for tech censorship. 

I'm starting to lean more toward some regulation necessary of these major platforms. However, many Americans are already deeply suspicious of any form of government. 

Safety vs autonomy debate. 

Analyst Peter Zeihan has pointed out that every new communication technology has required a new framework of legislation.  This seems due.

 

I would say bots should be banned, as well as false claims that wouldn't be allowed on TV or security threats and hate speech already disallowed.

[West]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Analyst Peter Zeihan has pointed out that every new communication technology has required a new framework of legislation.  This seems due.

 

I would say bots should be banned, as well as false claims that wouldn't be allowed on TV or security threats and hate speech already disallowed.

I didn't realize bots were actually a thing until just recently. I would agree there. 

 

Edited March 18 by West

[Hodad]

There are some ways the platforms should be regulated (user age, for example and certain established content types) but generally I think content should be regulated by the platform. They should moderate content, vs regulate content. There's no reason the government shouldn't be able to share a POV with the platforms though. Misinformation and disinformation are dangerous. Hate speech can be dangerous. Users can and should be able to flag that content for moderators. And so should the government and other entities. 

[West]

Just now, Hodad said:

There are some ways the platforms should be regulated (user age, for example and certain established content types) but generally I think content should be regulated by the platform. They should moderate content, vs regulate content. There's no reason the government shouldn't be able to share a POV with the platforms though. Misinformation and disinformation are dangerous. Hate speech can be dangerous. Users can and should be able to flag that content for moderators. And so should the government and other entities. 

I joined a buy and sell group awhile ago on Facebook. It's been overrun by porn bots now. 

Facebook used to be about sharing photos of the grandkids. Now it's become a pretty vile place at times

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, West said:

I joined a buy and sell group awhile ago on Facebook. It's been overrun by porn bots now. 

Facebook used to be about sharing photos of the grandkids. Now it's become a pretty vile place at times

Yep, that's a good example of a slam-dunk case for moderation. There are lots of ways for platforms to keep bots (and human creeps) off of the platform, and plenty of incentives to do so. But there are also perverse incentives not to do so. The revenue models are problematic. 

I think I've recommended it here before, but Maria Ressa's work (Nobel Peace Prize)on the perverse incentives of social networks is worth a look.

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, West said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-debates-biden-administration-outreach-digital-platforms-over-controversial-posts

 

Very interesting time for tech censorship. 

I'm starting to lean more toward some regulation necessary of these major platforms. However, many Americans are already deeply suspicious of any form of government. 

Safety vs autonomy debate. 

This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the control of narratives. 

The big tech firms were all part of TNI before Elon Musk snatched Twitter away from them, now the left hates him.

TNI controlled the narratives of covid and the Biden laptop for the Demis and their Big Pharma pals, and hopefully the time has come for them to pay the piper. 

 

A big comedian from back in the day, George Carlin iirc, once quipped that Big Pharma was pissed at all the money that they lost because of the vaccine that cured polio... They sure made all that back.

[West]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the control of narratives. 

The big tech firms were all part of TNI before Elon Musk snatched Twitter away from them, now the left hates him.

TNI controlled the narratives of covid and the Biden laptop for the Demis and their Big Pharma pals, and hopefully the time has come for them to pay the piper. 

 

A big comedian from back in the day, George Carlin iirc, once quipped that Big Pharma was pissed at all the money that they lost because of the vaccine that cured polio... They sure made all that back.

I'm a skeptic of big government as much as the next guy. There's certainly some things, such as not allowing weirdos to spam your buy and sell page with sex videos, and censorship because a beurocrat doesn't like the story. 

[West]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yep, that's a good example of a slam-dunk case for moderation. There are lots of ways for platforms to keep bots (and human creeps) off of the platform, and plenty of incentives to do so. But there are also perverse incentives not to do so. The revenue models are problematic. 

I think I've recommended it here before, but Maria Ressa's work (Nobel Peace Prize)on the perverse incentives of social networks is worth a look.

I wonder if it has to do more with the logistics of policing a forum with a billion or so users over the profit. I can't imagine that allowing perverts to spam pages is good for their bottom line. 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, West said:

I'm a skeptic of big government as much as the next guy. There's certainly some things, such as not allowing weirdos to spam your buy and sell page with sex videos, and censorship because a beurocrat doesn't like the story. 

That's the fault of the website. The gov't should stay out of it.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, West said:

... censorship because a beurocrat doesn't like the story. 

How about if people disagree with a proposed "woke" law but the algorithm decides that they don't want your post on the topic shared with too many people so it reduces the visibility of your post ?

You think you're using a platform to express your views but they're not going out in the way you think.

And this is the platform people are using to make up their minds on things.  

[Nationalist]

The DoD financed the development of TCP/IP. It went public and was weaponized. The irony is facinating.

Should the government have any control over social media? Ask yourself, do you trust the government at all?

I would propose a different tactic. Let the public square of social media be...or turn it off completely. 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. The DoD financed the development of TCP/IP. It went public and was weaponized.

2. Should the government have any control over social media? Ask yourself, do you trust the government at all?

3. I would propose a different tactic. Let the public square of social media be...or turn it off completely. 

1. TCP/IP was 'weaponized' ?  It's a standard, a protocol.  Kind of like saying a language was weaponized.  It's used for many things including commerce, entertainment, education, and Truth Social.  In other words, communicating.
2. So are you saying there should be no control ?  You don't trust the government, so you would leave it to Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Apple and Microsoft to decide among themselves how to govern and monetize free speech.  That's what I'm getting from it.

The fact that speech has undergone a complete shift in what it means is something we have to pay attention to.  We can't treat Facebook as though it's another company like the United Fruit Company.
3. Those are night and day solutions, either one being a complete makeover of how we live.  How about we tax Facebook and Amazon properly and force them to pay people ... they could give over a $10K raise to every employee at less than 5% of their revenue.  What would that amount of spending do for the economy ?

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. TCP/IP was 'weaponized' ?  It's a standard, a protocol.  Kind of like saying a language was weaponized.  It's used for many things including commerce, entertainment, education, and Truth Social.  In other words, communicating.
2. So are you saying there should be no control ?  You don't trust the government, so you would leave it to Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Apple and Microsoft to decide among themselves how to govern and monetize free speech.  That's what I'm getting from it.

The fact that speech has undergone a complete shift in what it means is something we have to pay attention to.  We can't treat Facebook as though it's another company like the United Fruit Company.
3. Those are night and day solutions, either one being a complete makeover of how we live.  How about we tax Facebook and Amazon properly and force them to pay people ... they could give over a $10K raise to every employee at less than 5% of their revenue.  What would that amount of spending do for the economy ?

1. Good point. And indeed we know language can be and is weaponized. Yet social media brings said weaponization to the entire globe instantaneously. How do you control that? Can you control that? Should you control that?

2 & 3. Part of the problem, in my view, is money. How can internet services monetize social media? Perhaps a solution would be to charge a membership or usage fee on users?

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. Good point. And indeed we know language can be and is weaponized.

2. Yet social media brings said weaponization to the entire globe instantaneously. How do you control that? Can you control that? Should you control that?

2 & 3. Part of the problem, in my view, is money. How can internet services monetize social media? Perhaps a solution would be to charge a membership or usage fee on users?

1. I suppose you're right on that.
2. All good questions.  I would say that the more people that talk on THAT topic, the closer we will be to figuring it out.
2&3. Except that doesn't work either.  The fact is that you have a gigantic boon in tech monopolies.  The unfortunate solution staring us in the face is government-directed rebalancing which we also know is a disaster.

Thinking out loud: maybe this is just trust-busting that needs to happen ?  As happened to Standard Oil ?

[West]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That's the fault of the website. The gov't should stay out of it.

That's true to an extent but when you have children accessing your site there should be some regulation to keep grooming perverts from accessing to cause harm

 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

How about if people disagree with a proposed "woke" law but the algorithm decides that they don't want your post on the topic shared with too many people so it reduces the visibility of your post ?

You think you're using a platform to express your views but they're not going out in the way you think.

And this is the platform people are using to make up their minds on things.  

A point I've considered. Gates, Zuckerberg et al seem to have somewhat a monopoly on speech

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I suppose you're right on that.
2. All good questions.  I would say that the more people that talk on THAT topic, the closer we will be to figuring it out.
2&3. Except that doesn't work either.  The fact is that you have a gigantic boon in tech monopolies.  The unfortunate solution staring us in the face is government-directed rebalancing which we also know is a disaster.

Thinking out loud: maybe this is just trust-busting that needs to happen ?  As happened to Standard Oil ?

The governments have proven to be untrustworthy.

[Michael Hardner]

32 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

The governments have proven to be untrustworthy.

So what is the answer ?  Do nothing and let monopolies and tech moderation of our public sphere just happen ?

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, West said:

A point I've considered. Gates, Zuckerberg et al seem to have somewhat a monopoly on speech

It's ironic that you're saying ^this on a site over which big tech has NO CONTROL. Although, IF they were interested, they could probably buy out Greg for a song.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

The governments have proven to be untrustworthy.

And they're ever more untrustworthy when you vote a pathological LIAR into the highest office like you're proposing.

You obviously care NOTHING about trust.

[West]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

It's ironic that you're saying ^this on a site over which big tech has NO CONTROL. Although, IF they were interested, they could probably buy out Greg for a song.

And they're ever more untrustworthy when you vote a pathological LIAR into the highest office like you're proposing.

You obviously care NOTHING about trust.

Is the US Supreme Court hearing a case against our beloved Greg's website? 

[robosmith]

37 minutes ago, West said:

Is the US Supreme Court hearing a case against our beloved Greg's website? 

I don't see anything in your OP which says it's excluded.

[West]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I don't see anything in your OP which says it's excluded.

The lawsuit alleges 67 government agencies worked with Twitter and Facebook to kill significant stories during a previous election cycle. 

I see nothing about Greg's site in the article. 

Edited March 19 by West

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, West said:

The lawsuit alleges 67 government agencies worked with Twitter and Facebook to kill significant stories during a previous election cycle. 

I see nothing about Greg's site in the article. 

IF the SCOTUS renders a narrow decision then no other sites are affected.

But if they render a broad decision, it could affect every social media site.

So far the cons on this court have shown a tendency to render decisions that are much broader than necessary.

Like Dobbs and the recent Co SC decision....

[West]

42 minutes ago, robosmith said:

IF the SCOTUS renders a narrow decision then no other sites are affected.

But if they render a broad decision, it could affect every social media site.

So far the cons on this court have shown a tendency to render decisions that are much broader than necessary.

Like Dobbs and the recent Co SC decision....

Okay thank you for clarifying. 

I was speaking more specifically of the big ones like Facebook and Twitter. 

Edited March 19 by West

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So what is the answer ?  Do nothing and let monopolies and tech moderation of our public sphere just happen ?

You could just ban all social media...I suppose...maybe...

The key is money. Morality was gone 30 years ago. Probably more depending on how one feels about the Warren Report.

Section 230 of the communications decency act might work? Depending on the definition of decency. Remove their immunity.