Technology

58092 readers

2941 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

264

It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media (theconversation.com)

submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

98 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Lith@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I think this is an underrated point. A lot of people are quick to say "private companies aren't covered by free speech", but I'm sure everyone agrees legal ≠ moral. We rely on these platforms so much that they've effectively become our public squares. Our government even uses them in official capacities, e.g. the president announcing things on Twitter.

When being censored on a private platform is effectively social and informational murder, I think it's time for us to revisit our centuries-old definitions. Whether you agree or disagree that these instances should be covered by free speech laws, this is becoming an important discussion that I never see brought up, but instead I keep seeing the same bad faith argument that companies are allowed to do this because they're allowed to do it.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is an argument for a publicly-funded “digital public square”, not an argument for stripping private companies of their rights.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Why not both?

While I agree that punishing companies for success isn't a good idea, we aren't talking about small startups or local business ran by individual entrepreneurs or members of the community here. We're talking about absurdly huge corporations with reach and influence the likes that few businesses ever reach. I don't think it's unreasonable to apply a different set of rules to them, as they are distinctly different situations.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Because one is violating the first amendment rights of a private company, the other isn’t. Punishing a private company for how an individual uses their platform isn’t constitutional. It would be like holding car manufacturers liable for drunk drivers.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago

I fully agree. Small groups have limited resources. But google and facebook have a ton of resources, they can handle more oversight.

[+] Blamemeta@lemm.ee -8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's a good idea, but I still think big sites are public spaces at this point.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

“Publicly-accessible private space” and “public space” are two legally-distinct things. In a public town square, you have first amendment rights. In a shopping mall*, your speech and behavior are restricted. This is similar in that regard. Both are publicly-accessible, but one is private property and can be subject to the rules of the property owner.

Edit: *not applicable to certain behaviors or speech in Californian malls

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 7 points 10 months ago

It's different because the company built and maintains the space. Same goes for a concert hall, a pub, etc...

Nobody believes that someone being thrown out of a pub for spouting Nazistic hate speech is their "free speech being trampled". Why should it be any different if it's a website?

You rarely see the discussion, because there's rarely a good argument here. It boils down to "it's a big website, so I should be allowed to post whatever I want there", which makes little to no sense and opens up a massive quagmire of legal issues.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

bad faith argument that companies are allowed to do this because they're allowed to do it.

So let's get this straight, it's "bad faith" to point out facts but "good faith" to support bigotry and hatred like you're "accidentally" doing with your argument?

[–] Lith@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's bad faith to argue that companies should be allowed to do things because they're already allowed to do those things. I see a little bit of that creeping in even here with the concept of "rights", as if corporations were humans. Laws can change.

It's good faith to ask if companies have too much power over what has become our default mode of communication. It's also good faith to challenge this question with non-circular logic.

Your assumption that I'm defending racism and bigotry is exactly why I think this stuff is important. You've implied I'm an insidious alt-rightist trying to dog whistle, and now I'm terrified of getting banned or otherwise censored. I'm interested in expressing myself. I do not want to express bigotry. But if one person decides what I said is even linked to bigotry, suddenly I'm a target, and I can lose a decades-old social account and all of its connections. And if that happens I just have to accept it because it's currently legal. It's so fucking stressful to say anything online anymore.