Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: BobShaw on September 20, 2020, 12:43:49 am
-
I just watched The Social Dilemma on Netflix.
Very interesting. It sort of explains how the world is becoming more polarised.
Basically if there were a group of people who believed the world was flat and a (big hopefully) group of people who believed it was round, then you could get more people believing it is flat by feeding the flat earthers conspiracy theories supporting that in their social media and suggesting friends etc that support that belief. Then you start feeding advertising for more companies that sell products based on that and then for more militant groups.
This obviously extends to everything from political persuasions to a teenager's appearance.
It sort of explains how people are being manipulated to believe that everything about one group is right and everything about another group is wrong.
The social impact is quite shocking. Teenage suicides and self harm are up something like 172% in the last few years since kids have had phones in high school.
Worth a look.
-
I watched it too. By the end I got a little disappointed. While I agree there is much for concern, I thought the show was just a bunch of malcontent gurus saying, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling", but never giving any solutions. Ok, fine, what do we do about it?
Plus, it does not jive with my personal experience. Granted, I'm an old fart and fairly isolated, but the stuff targeted at me is so far off base it's bizarre. None of it matches my "profile." Example, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video have my extensive watch history, but the shows they push on me bear no relation. Ditto Amazon Shopping. I got a new puppy recently and bought a bunch of puppy stuff in the first 2 months. After that, Amazon kept trying to sell me cat stuff!
A recent headline said Alan Dershowitz was suing CNN for editing his remarks to completely change their meaning. I tried to get Google to show me his original remarks in full and the CNN edits so I could judge myself. I couldn't do it, and gave up. All I could find was news about the suit being filed.
-
I watched it too. By the end I got a little disappointed. While I agree there is much for concern, I thought the show was just a bunch of malcontent gurus saying, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling", but never giving any solutions. Ok, fine, what do we do about it?
Plus, it does not jive with my personal experience. Granted, I'm an old fart and fairly isolated, but the stuff targeted at me is so far off base it's bizarre.
I think that the main issues is kids, teens and up to mid twenties who are comparatively easily led. They are worried about what most adults can dismiss and can get depressed very easily. it is not obvious.
I live in a small country town but we have had 5 kids commit suicide at our high school recently. That is not what I would call normal behaviour. From my primary school of 50 years ago reunion nearly all are still around.
The solution given was that the social media platforms must take some responsibility, but that would require legislation and I doubt governments understand the problem. Profit trumps responsibility usually.
-
If this topic is of interest I recommend reading the third book from Harari “21 lessons for the 21st century”.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think that the main issues is kids, teens and up to mid twenties who are comparatively easily led. They are worried about what most adults can dismiss and can get depressed very easily. it is not obvious.
I'd say that a quick scan of the postings in this forum would suggest that it's not just teenagers who are influenced by social media.
-
I agree with the OP. Well worth watching. Many technologies are two-edged swords. Social media is no exception.
Several participants offer valuable suggestions on how to fix this problem. Most of them require responsible consumption and regulation.
Agreed: Harari’s book is excellent.
-
The solution given was that the social media platforms must take some responsibility, but that would require legislation and I doubt governments understand the problem. Profit trumps responsibility usually.
Sort of like the oil and gas industry. Seems like a lot of people get away with a lot of stuff.
-
I think that the main issues is kids, teens and up to mid twenties who are comparatively easily led. They are worried about what most adults can dismiss and can get depressed very easily. it is not obvious.
I live in a small country town but we have had 5 kids commit suicide at our high school recently. That is not what I would call normal behaviour. From my primary school of 50 years ago reunion nearly all are still around.
The solution given was that the social media platforms must take some responsibility, but that would require legislation and I doubt governments understand the problem. Profit trumps responsibility usually.
The last thing we need is government telling us what to believe and what to read, watch and listen too. That's what they do in China and Cuba. Maybe we should strike certain opinions here on LuLa such as about cell phones? Afterall, we all know that they aren't real cameras and if it wasn't for social media, no one would use them. :)
-
I agree with the OP. Well worth watching. Many technologies are two-edged swords. Social media is no exception.
Several participants offer valuable suggestions on how to fix this problem. Most of them require responsible consumption and regulation.
Agreed: Harari’s book is excellent.
Don't you believe in free speech?
-
Don't you believe in free speech?
Don't you believe in regulation?
(the old "FIRE!" in the theatre argument comes to mind)
-
Don't you believe in free speech?
Sure, just not an absolute right. We have been going back and forth on finding the balance for a couple of hundred years, and just when we are starting to get some consensus, the technology changes and we have to start all over again. Sort of like the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. We pretty much had that resolved until some guy invented the cellphone and the internet. Seems like everything is a work in progress. Maybe my grandmother was right when she told me the world is changing too fast, and that was just because I wore my new bellbottoms to Sunday dinner.
-
Sure, just not an absolute right. We have been going back and forth on finding the balance for a couple of hundred years, and just when we are starting to get some consensus, the technology changes and we have to start all over again. Sort of like the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. We pretty much had that resolved until some guy invented the cellphone and the internet. Seems like everything is a work in progress. Maybe my grandmother was right when she told me the world is changing too fast, and that was just because I wore my new bellbottoms to Sunday dinner.
Technology changes nothing. People are the same. Some want power and will shut you up to get it and keep it. A free people want their liberties and want protection against those that would steal their freedoms. Free speech in America is an absolute right as long as it doesn't physically hurt another person. Hurting their feelings doesn't count.
-
Technology changes nothing. People are the same. Some want power and will shut you up to get it and keep it. A free people want their liberties and want protection against those that would steal their freedoms. Free speech in America is an absolute right as long as it doesn't physically hurt another person. Hurting their feelings doesn't count.
This is probably one of those situations where it would be best to consult an experienced attorney who specializes in First Amendment cases for a complete and accurate answer, rather than rely on the advice of some random guy on the internet.
-
Technology changes nothing. People are the same. Some want power and will shut you up to get it and keep it. A free people want their liberties and want protection against those that would steal their freedoms. Free speech in America is an absolute right as long as it doesn't physically hurt another person. Hurting their feelings doesn't count.
In a never-ending litany of astounding rash generalization from Mr Klein, that one is surely the most unsupportable of all.
I'll help you out, Alan: Technology changes EVERYTHING.
-
In a never-ending litany of astounding rash generalization from Mr Klein, that one is surely the most unsupportable of all.
I'll help you out, Alan: Technology changes EVERYTHING.
That's rather a rash generalization. Technology is a tool. It's like the technology of digital cameras. New and powerful, but still a tool. Means and methods have changed. But, it's the picture that counts. Likewise, people are the same. They want to control. They use technology so means and methods are sometimes different. But their goals are the same.
-
That's rather a rash generalization. Technology is a tool. It's like the technology of digital cameras. New and powerful, but still a tool. Means and methods have changed. But, it's the picture that counts. Likewise, people are the same. They want to control. They use technology so means and methods are sometimes different. But their goals are the same.
No generalization there that I can detect, except maybe that part about people being the same.
-
No generalization there that I can detect.
This area of Lula is nothing if not topical. There was a recent very good podcast on NPR's Fresh Air about precisely these issues, free speech, etc, https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925869066/free-speech-in-the-age-of-disinformation (https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925869066/free-speech-in-the-age-of-disinformation). Alan K. is usually doctrinaire about these things but most things in life are grey. Technology changes a lot of things, and strict adherence to "free speech" might have the eventual effect of cancelling all speech if we're not careful.
I placed free speech in quotes because it is probably not what most people think it is. After all, whistle-blowers can be treated quite badly by those whose power they disrupt, even when they speak the truth. Free speech doesn't always help them much.
But the issues on the net are that although we think we are in public spaces, the net, represented most obviously by social media, is more like a mall than the commons. It is run by private companies. I could be completely wrong about this, but I always thought that free speech was something that the US government cannot abrogate. But that's not really the current problem, is it? It's not the government trying to prevent people from speaking, so viewing this strictly as a free speech issue might miss the mark.
-
This area of Lula is nothing if not topical. There was a recent very good podcast on NPR's Fresh Air about precisely these issues, free speech, etc, https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925869066/free-speech-in-the-age-of-disinformation (https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925869066/free-speech-in-the-age-of-disinformation). Alan K. is usually doctrinaire about these things but most things in life are grey. Technology changes a lot of things, and strict adherence to "free speech" might have the eventual effect of cancelling all speech if we're not careful.
I placed free speech in quotes because it is probably not what most people think it is. After all, whistle-blowers can be treated quite badly by those whose power they disrupt, even when they speak the truth. Free speech doesn't always help them much.
But the issues on the net are that although we think we are in public spaces, the net, represented most obviously by social media, is more like a mall than the commons. It is run by private companies. I could be completely wrong about this, but I always thought that free speech was something that the US government cannot abrogate. But that's not really the current problem, is it? It's not the government trying to prevent people from speaking, so viewing this strictly as a free speech issue might miss the mark.
You've covered a lot of territory. You're right that free speech is protected against government interference. However, private speech is not necessarily protected if you're using it on someone else's property such as your employer. You give up certain of those rights. There's nothing in the constitution that protects them for the most part. Likewise, government employees are employees as well and have to follow certain guidelines of their employer. An obvious example is revealing classified information. Of course, in public employment, there more freedom of speech granted but even then it usually has to be done off premises.
The topical issue today of course is Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al's right to control what gets published on their sites. While I believe they should be allowed to do what they want, there's a problem. They were given protection against lawsuits by Congress so they can't be sued. Congress wanted to encourage free and open publication of all views in social media. The issue today is that they are limiting certain viewpoints like regular media who are not protected against libel. If the net media companies want to make political decisions as to what they publish, congress should take away that protection and let them operate like other media.
Curious how LuLa is treated and what would happen if certain viewpoints were censored?
-
The topical issue today of course is Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al's right to control what gets published on their sites. While I believe they should be allowed to do what they want, there's a problem. They were given protection against lawsuits by Congress so they can't be sued. Congress wanted to encourage free and open publication of all views in social media. The issue today is that they are limiting certain viewpoints like regular media who are not protected against libel. If the net media companies want to make political decisions as to what they publish, congress should take away that protection and let them operate like other media.
It doesn't affect me. I don't use social media. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use Facebook. If you don't like what's going on, go somewhere else, or don't use it. Just like if you don't like CNN, go to Fox, or read the paper, the paper you like, or don't keep up with the news. A lot of people do that. Next thing you are going to want is a law that says the New York Times can't edit the comments on its webpage because you don't think it is fair. Or forcing the Washington Post cover the Hunter Biden laptop story. Or making my local paper cover more local issues instead of all that generic syndicated crap. I really get tired of all the whining.
-
The last thing we need is government telling us what to believe and what to read, watch and listen too. That's what they do in China and Cuba. Maybe we should strike certain opinions here on LuLa such as about cell phones? Afterall, we all know that they aren't real cameras and if it wasn't for social media, no one would use them. :)
This seems to have gone off the rails.
i think you missed the point.
Social media IS telling you what to believe and what to read, watch and listen too. You just don't know it.
Every other media has to follow acceptable standards. I expect that possibly applies even in the US.
As the whole "Freedom" thing, most countries in the world are free. That doesn't mean there are no rules about what is acceptable.
-
It doesn't affect me. I don't use social media. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use Facebook. If you don't like what's going on, go somewhere else, or don't use it. Just like if you don't like CNN, go to Fox, or read the paper, the paper you like, or don't keep up with the news. A lot of people do that. Next thing you are going to want is a law that says the New York Times can't edit the comments on its webpage because you don't think it is fair. Or forcing the Washington Post cover the Hunter Biden laptop story. Or making my local paper cover more local issues instead of all that generic syndicated crap. I really get tired of all the whining.
Apparently I wasn't clear or you didn't read my post completely. I suggest you re-read it.
-
This seems to have gone off the rails.
i think you missed the point.
Social media IS telling you what to believe and what to read, watch and listen too. You just don't know it.
Every other media has to follow acceptable standards. I expect that possibly applies even in the US.
As the whole "Freedom" thing, most countries in the world are free. That doesn't mean there are no rules about what is acceptable.
The US has higher standards of free speech than many countries, maybe most. People here can say and do obnoxious things like have Nazi or KKK rallies with impunity. They are protected constitutionally. Of course there are libel laws and you can be sued for defamation for untrue accusations. But those mainly apply to non-public people. Politicians and famous people in the news have less protection. The thing with social media is they are just a conduit for others' speech. So as long as they are not the ones directly saying it, they aren't affected. Congress has given that protection. However, if they start censoring certain speech they don;t like, they they should lose that protection and be treated like any other news source which can then be sued if they defame someone.
-
The US has higher standards of free speech than many countries, maybe most. People here can say and do obnoxious things like have Nazi or KKK rallies with impunity. They are protected constitutionally. Of course there are libel laws and you can be sued for defamation for untrue accusations. But those mainly apply to non-public people. Politicians and famous people in the news have less protection. The thing with social media is they are just a conduit for others' speech. So as long as they are not the ones directly saying it, they aren't affected. Congress has given that protection. However, if they start censoring certain speech they don;t like, they they should lose that protection and be treated like any other news source which can then be sued if they defame someone.
I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like if in the next post I call you a crook, you want to have the right to sue Josh. If it turns out to be true that you are a crook, then Josh will be out the time and expense of defending a lawsuit. If it turns out to be false that you are a crook, then you want Josh to be liable to you for damages. Because if I am Josh, I would probably shut down LuLa in half a heartbeat, and we will never know whether Nikon or Canon is best. Is that your position?
If liability protection is removed, I am wondering if there are enough unemployed people, and people willing to change jobs, in America to actually police the social media platforms, and enough lawyers in America to handle the lawsuits, frivolous and valid. But what an industry you would create.
-
The US has higher standards of free speech than many countries, maybe most. People here can say and do obnoxious things like have Nazi or KKK rallies with impunity. They are protected constitutionally. Of course there are libel laws and you can be sued for defamation for untrue accusations. But those mainly apply to non-public people. Politicians and famous people in the news have less protection. The thing with social media is they are just a conduit for others' speech. So as long as they are not the ones directly saying it, they aren't affected. Congress has given that protection. However, if they start censoring certain speech they don;t like, they they should lose that protection and be treated like any other news source which can then be sued if they defame someone.
I think you should listen to that podcast from NPR's Fresh Air that I gave earlier. It is not a propaganda piece espousing a point of view, it is a description of what's happening now and what problems are created. What harm can it do?
-
I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like if in the next post I call you a crook, you want to have the right to sue Josh. If it turns out to be true that you are a crook, then Josh will be out the time and expense of defending a lawsuit. If it turns out to be false that you are a crook, then you want Josh to be liable to you for damages. Because if I am Josh, I would probably shut down LuLa in half a heartbeat, and we will never know whether Nikon or Canon is best. Is that your position?
If liability protection is removed, I am wondering if there are enough unemployed people, or people willing to change jobs, in America to actually police the social media platforms, and enough lawyers in America to handle the lawsuits, frivolous and valid. But what an industry you would create.
No that wasn't my opinion. Here's an explanation that might clear up the matter.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html
-
I think you should listen to that podcast from NPR's Fresh Air that I gave earlier. It is not a propaganda piece espousing a point of view, it is a description of what's happening now and what problems are created. What harm can it do?
Can you sum it up as required by LuLa? What is its main points?
-
No that wasn't my opinion. Here's an explanation that might clear up the matter.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html
That really doesn't answer the question of whether you think you should be able to sue Josh if I call you a crook in the next post and its not true.
-
Can you sum it up as required by LuLa? What is its main points?
I stated exactly what the podcast was about. Not sure where you get the idea that I'm supposed to summarize it.
But the interviewee in question discusses exactly why social media occupy the space they do, they are not deemed to be publishers, along with many other specific details of what's going on in the interweb. People should familiarize themselves with those basic facts. This is a new situation.
I find some of the things I read here confusing. You seem to think that free speech should prevail on social media and that they have no right to censor. That is not at all clear to me. If private employers can prevent their employees from saying certain things then so can social media. They are not a public place, is my understanding, people just think they are. And per their governing regulation, people cannot sue social media because of what a contributor might write, as explained in detail in the podcast including why they were set up that way. (Though I guess there's always the possibility of a test case.)
-
Can you sum it up as required by LuLa? What is its main points?
No that wasn't my opinion. Here's an explanation that might clear up the matter.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html
These posts were less than 90 seconds apart.
-
That really doesn't answer the question of whether you think you should be able to sue Josh if I call you a crook in the next post and its not true.
Precisely one of things that are part of the wider conversation about social media. Are they de facto publishers? Are they public spaces? What does it even mean to have a public space owned and operated by a private owner? If they are public spaces, then shouldn't their algorithms be made public?
-
I find some of the things I read here confusing.
That's because some people don't know what they are talking about, or are inconsistent, or use poor reasoning in their arguments.
-
That really doesn't answer the question of whether you think you should be able to sue Josh if I call you a crook in the next post and its not true.
No, I think LuLa is protected by that law, but I could be wrong. I'm not a lawyer. But just calling someone a crook seems like an opinion. It's like saying someone who uses Photoshop is a liar or a phoney. We're all phonies then. :)
Now, if you posted that I stole money from my clients and I was a wedding photographer in business, that could be grounds for libel. You would have damaged my reputation. On the other hand, if you said I was a lousy wedding photographer, that's an opinion and is now protected by federal law. Otherwise, restaurants (that are still in business) could sue customers who posted bad things about their experiences and food, which is what use to happen. EVerything I say is open to debate since I am not a lawyer. Check with yours if you want to know for sure. So don't sue me for giving bad advice. :)
-
Now if you libeled me so I lost income and business, I could sue you but not LuLa. They're protected by the law. The issue with Twitter is that they started to censor posts based on political position, then they are no longer acting as an open place for opinions. They are acting like any other media such as a newspaper which are not protected. The law was not intended to protect the latter. Of course, I could be wrong about this a well. So check with your attorney.
-
I'm not a lawyer either, but as a reporter I was intensely aware of libel problems and also the difference between a publisher and a public utility like a phone company. Maybe a lawyer here could answer a question for me -- since the social media (Facebook, for example, or Twitter) have now begun some monitoring and censoring of posts, doesn't that mean that they've more or less conceded that they're publishers? I think a very large number of social media problems would almost instantly go away if those companies were found to be publishers and liable for damages for things that were published on their forums. If their answer was that with billions of members, it's not practical or even possible to monitor everything, our answer would simply be, "Not our problem."
-
So let's say hypothetically that me calling you a crook is libel, do you think you should be able to sue Josh and collect damages. Isn't that what you are suggesting should happen when you remove the liability protection currently afforded social media outlets.
I don't believe so as long as they didn't urge you to do it and were not part of the posting other than acting as host.
-
I'm not a lawyer either, but as a reporter I was intensely aware of libel problems and also the difference between a publisher and a public utility like a phone company. Maybe a lawyer here could answer a question for me -- since the social media (Facebook, for example, or Twitter) have now begun some monitoring and censoring of posts, doesn't that mean that they've more or less conceded that they're publishers? I think a very large number of social media problems would almost instantly go away if those companies were found to be publishers and liable for damages for things that were published on their forums. If their answer was that with billions of members, it's not practical or even possible to monitor everything, our answer would simply be, "Not our problem."
I'm not a lawyer but let me take a stab at it. I think it's a matter of degree. For example, LulA screens posts for verbal assaults and bad language. I don't think that makes them a publisher. On the other hand, if they allowed posts only praising one party and not the other, then they would be a publisher. This is the complaint about Twitter. They're taking political sides during an election. Of course, they claim it's not political, that it's just a posting standard. They want to censor lies. WEll, that would be OK I suppose. But then they have to do it across the board. Why should they be protected if they are acting as a publisher? Of course, that doesn;t mean you could sue. There has to be damages by their action or the statement posted. This is more a political and freedom of speech question. It could wind up in Federal courts. But they should defer back to Congress to clear it up since they wrote the law to begin with.
-
I don't believe so as long as they didn't urge you to do it and were not part of the posting other than acting as host.
So why are you advocating removing the liability protections currently afforded social media outlets?
-
So why are you advocating removing the liability protections currently afforded social media outlets?
They can't have it both ways. If they want protection under the law, they should not censor any side or exclude people from twittering. Their sites should remain open to free speech. It would be like your ICP carrier deciding what political positions you can post on LuLa or the phone company deciding who uses their phone system based on what you have to say. It's none of Ma Bells' business. It's none of Twitter's business. Just complete the call.
-
I don't believe so as long as they didn't urge you to do it and were not part of the posting other than acting as host.
They can't have it both ways. If they want protection under the law, they should not censor any side or exclude people from twittering. Their sites should remain open to free speech. It would be like your ICP carrier deciding what political positions you can post on LuLa or the phone company deciding who uses their phone system based on what you have to say. It's none of Ma Bells' business. It's none of Twitter's business. Just complete the call.
So if Twitter wants to continue doing what it is currently doing, then you want to remove the existing liability protection for social media outlets, which, as a consequence, will give you the right to sue Josh if I libel you on LuLa?
-
I'm not a lawyer but let me take a stab at it. I think it's a matter of degree. For example, LulA screens posts for verbal assaults and bad language. I don't think that makes them a publisher. On the other hand, if they allowed posts only praising one party and not the other, then they would be a publisher. This is the complaint about Twitter. They're taking political sides during an election. Of course, they claim it's not political, that it's just a posting standard. They want to censor lies. WEll, that would be OK I suppose. But then they have to do it across the board. Why should they be protected if they are acting as a publisher? Of course, that doesn;t mean you could sue. There has to be damages by their action or the statement posted. This is more a political and freedom of speech question. It could wind up in Federal courts. But they should defer back to Congress to clear it up since they wrote the law to begin with.
What a bunch of gibberish.
-
So if Twitter wants to continue doing what it is currently doing, then you want to remove the existing liability protection for social media outlets, which, as a consequence, will give you the right to sue Josh if I libel you on LuLa?
I didn't say we should remove existing liability protection for social media outlets in general. What I'm saying is that if a particular social media outlet like Twitter begins to operate as a publisher, than they lose that protection. I don;t know how and who decides which particular sites fall into each category. It could be tested in court when someone sues Twitter claiming they lost their protection. Then a jury would have to decide if they did in fact not follow the law that protected them. I'm sure it would be appealed by whichever side lost and eventually wind up in the Supreme Court where Amy Corey Barret would make the deciding vote. Then we could argue about it here assuming Jeremy doesn't censor us. :)
-
What a bunch of gibberish.
See how well the law is working. We both have differing opinions about this. We both can state them without risk of liability which extends to LuLa. Everyone is happy. Free and open debate. Others can listen, add their opinions, or say nothing if they choose. Free and open is wonderful. It's those who want to shut down one side or the other who they disagree with who are the ones nervous about freedom. That's what Twitter was doing.
-
I didn't say we should remove existing liability protection for social media outlets in general. What I'm saying is that if a particular social media outlet like Twitter begins to operate as a publisher, than they lose that protection. I don;t know how and who decides which particular sites fall into each category. It could be tested in court when someone sues Twitter claiming they lost their protection. Then a jury would have to decide if they did in fact not follow the law that protected them. I'm sure it would be appealed by whichever side lost and eventually wind up in the Supreme Court where Amy Corey Barret would make the deciding vote. Then we could argue about it here assuming Jeremy doesn't censor us. :)
What is the difference between what Jeremy does on LuLa and what Twitter has been doing recently.
-
This is a short section of the transcript from that Fresh Air podcast that I mentioned earlier, which explains why social media were not initially made responsible for content provided by contributors (I assume I can reproduce this short section) but the entire transcript is here https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925755387/unfettered-free-speech-is-a-threat-to-democracy-journalist-says (https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925755387/unfettered-free-speech-is-a-threat-to-democracy-journalist-says).
DAVIES: Right. And just so we understand this, the immunity from libel suits - that comes from the Communications Decency Act of 1996. And what was the kind of public-interest principle that protected them from this kind of liability?
BAZELON: I mean, it was really this idea that it was so important to have the Internet grow, that you wanted to make sure that people couldn't sue the people who were setting up the platforms and providing content on the Internet because you didn't want to stifle its growth. And one of the problems that at least people project about libel suits is that - so if I come along and I post something that's really mean about you, but it might be true - and then I post that on, say, Twitter. And then you go to Twitter, and you say, that's libel. I'm going to sue. Twitter could look at that and say, well, we don't know if this is true or not. We don't want to pay to litigate this and defend it. So we're just going to take it down. And so that's the concern. It's sometimes called the heckler's veto. The people who complain are going to get a lot of content taken down. And that's going to promote overcensorship. So that's what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was supposed to prevent.
So at that time, Congress thought there was a specific reason to do what they did. People argue that the circumstances have changed greatly since then. Social media algorithms do NOT ensure fair play, they encourage the loudest voices that create outrage and controversy because media's self-interest DOES NOT necessarily care about free speech (why should it since they are not the government) but rather their only interest is to ensure more clicks. What people seem to be saying (according to the interviewee) is that this arrangement should be revisited because circumstances have changed.
-
What is the difference between what Jeremy does on LuLa and what Twitter has been doing recently.
Twitter shut down political speech on one side claiming it was only blocking offensive material. That's just silly. Nothing a president says is offensive. He the leader of the country and we should hear what he has to say. It was obviously a political action they took. If Josh shut down Trump's posts and not Biden's, he would be acting like Twitter. If standard and rules are not applied equally by Jeremy or Twitter which is allowed under Section 230 law, then a site including this one, should not have protection. Here's the law 47 Section 230. Twitter may have screwed themselves and other sites like them. BY playing politics they pissed off the very people who wrote this law to give them this protection. They also hurt the public because this law helps us all to maintain free speech that we cherish. The outcome may be to limit future availability of open communications like we have here.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
-
This is a short section of the transcript from that Fresh Air podcast that I mentioned earlier, which explains why social media were not initially made responsible for content provided by contributors (I assume I can reproduce this short section) but the entire transcript is here https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925755387/unfettered-free-speech-is-a-threat-to-democracy-journalist-says (https://www.npr.org/2020/10/20/925755387/unfettered-free-speech-is-a-threat-to-democracy-journalist-says).
DAVIES: Right. And just so we understand this, the immunity from libel suits - that comes from the Communications Decency Act of 1996. And what was the kind of public-interest principle that protected them from this kind of liability?
BAZELON: I mean, it was really this idea that it was so important to have the Internet grow, that you wanted to make sure that people couldn't sue the people who were setting up the platforms and providing content on the Internet because you didn't want to stifle its growth. And one of the problems that at least people project about libel suits is that - so if I come along and I post something that's really mean about you, but it might be true - and then I post that on, say, Twitter. And then you go to Twitter, and you say, that's libel. I'm going to sue. Twitter could look at that and say, well, we don't know if this is true or not. We don't want to pay to litigate this and defend it. So we're just going to take it down. And so that's the concern. It's sometimes called the heckler's veto. The people who complain are going to get a lot of content taken down. And that's going to promote overcensorship. So that's what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was supposed to prevent.
So at that time, Congress thought there was a specific reason to do what they did. People argue that the circumstances have changed greatly since then. Social media algorithms do NOT ensure fair play, they encourage the loudest voices that create outrage and controversy because media's self-interest DOES NOT necessarily care about free speech (why should it since they are not the government) but rather their only interest is to ensure more clicks. What people seem to be saying (according to the interviewee) is that this arrangement should be revisited because circumstances have changed.
But that's not what happened with Twitter. There was no threat of lawsuit because Section 230 protects them. Nor was it shut down because of some algorithm. No algorithm removed somebody's twitter's account which is what was done. They shut it down and did these things for political reasons. They didn't like what one side said or who they were. That was not the intent of the protection law.
-
Twitter shut down political speech on one side claiming it was only blocking offensive material. That's just silly. Nothing a president says is offensive. He the leader of the country and we should hear what he has to say.
That is the most asinine thing I have heard you say, and there are a lot of things in the running. Trump has said plenty of offensive stuff. If I don't want to listen to what he has to say that's my business. What, next you will want to make me follow Trump or the next president on his Twitter feed because you think I should listen to what he has to say. I don't tell you what you should listen to, so you should just leave me alone. Honest to God, the arrogance of some people.
-
Twitter shut down political speech on one side claiming it was only blocking offensive material. That's just silly. Nothing a president says is offensive. He the leader of the country and we should hear what he has to say. It was obviously a political action they took.
If I remember the original Twitter take-down, it was because he said some gibberish that could not be backed up by facts, which is not exactly the same thing.
But I have to say that your assertion that a President can't say anything offensive is spectacularly funny. Thanks for the belly laugh.
In the end Twitter reversed itself because of what you say " He the leader of the country and we should hear what he has to say," but I don't believe this applies to everyone, only newsworthy people who have a public presence of some sort, I'm guessing. And it was NOT obviously a political act, you just interpret it that way. Should the President be allowed to say that Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers? Should he be allowed to call the Bidens crooks without proof? Is that what you think "free speech" is all about?
Actually they discussed this very sequence of events in that podcast, it's all in the transcript. No, I am not going to summarize it for you. It's all there, one click away. You know what it is in there, up to you to decide to educate yourself or not.
BY playing politics they pissed off the very people who wrote this law to give them this protection. They also hurt the public because this law helps us all to maintain free speech that we cherish. The outcome may be to limit future availability of open communications like we have here.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
But if Twitter is not a public space (it's a private one) and private spaces can limit speech, why can't they be allowed to limit speech on their platform? If they came out and said, we will no longer allow right-wing ideas on our site, although I don't know how they could define what that means, why shouldn't they be allowed to? What do they owe you or anyone? The "other" side could always start up their own social media platforms, can't they? No one is preventing them. Do you think many socialists write stuff on 4chan?
-
Trump has said plenty of offensive stuff. If I don't want to listen to what he has to say that's my business. What, next you will want me to follow Trump or the next president on Twitter because I should listen to it. I don't tell you what you should listen to, so you should just leave me alone.
No one's stopping Twitter from taking sides. The NY Times does it all the time as does CNN, ABC, Fox, and the Washington Post. But they're not protected by Section 230. If Twitter wants to play politics and take sides, more power to them. Their choice. But they have to give up the law's protection.
Shutting down political speech from the president is taking sides. If Twitter doesn't understand that, Congress will teach them. After all, the Democrats are just as pissed as the Republicans for what social media did to Hillary in 2016.
-
I didn't say we should remove existing liability protection for social media outlets in general. What I'm saying is that if a particular social media outlet like Twitter begins to operate as a publisher, than they lose that protection. I don;t know how and who decides which particular sites fall into each category. It could be tested in court when someone sues Twitter claiming they lost their protection. Then a jury would have to decide if they did in fact not follow the law that protected them. I'm sure it would be appealed by whichever side lost and eventually wind up in the Supreme Court where Amy Corey Barret would make the deciding vote. Then we could argue about it here assuming Jeremy doesn't censor us. :)
If the legislature does not handle this, Justice Thomas will.
In a recent opinion he stated the need for the courts to weigh in on this law. I see it getting challenged within the year.
-
That is the most asinine thing I have heard you say, and there are a lot of things in the running. Trump has said plenty of offensive stuff. If I don't want to listen to what he has to say that's my business. What, next you will want to make me follow Trump or the next president on his Twitter feed because you think I should listen to what he has to say. I don't tell you what you should listen to, so you should just leave me alone. Honest to God, the arrogance of some people.
You are wrong.
The law was never intended for censorship. It was intended to allow companies to removed stuff like porn in their threads.
If they act like a publisher, then they should loose their liability protection.
-
No one's stopping Twitter from taking sides. The NY Times does it all the time as does CNN, ABC, Fox, and the Washington Post. But they're not protected by Section 230. If Twitter wants to play politics and take sides, more power to them. Their choice. But they have to give up the law's protection.
Why is this so? Do you know this for sure because it sounds like an opinion to me, or maybe it's how you think it should work. Which is fair enough.
My understanding (from that podcast) is that social media can't be sued for libel for things contributors write. I don't know for a fact that they have to be fair-sided. Seems like a separate issue. Why do this think this is the case?
Shutting down political speech from the president is taking sides. If Twitter doesn't understand that, Congress will teach them. After all, the Democrats are just as pissed as the Republicans for what social media did to Hillary in 2016.
Surely they're allowed to shut down lies and disinformation. If it happens to come from one political party or another, or from one politician or another, is irrelevant. Go read the first few paragraphs of that transcript for an example. (When you're done, report back and summarize it for us. :) )
-
If I remember the original Twitter take-down, it was because he said some gibberish that could not be backed up by facts, which is not exactly the same thing.
But I have to say that your assertion that a President can't say anything offensive is spectacularly funny. Thanks for the belly laugh.
In the end Twitter reversed itself because of what you say " He the leader of the country and we should hear what he has to say," but I don't believe this applies to everyone, only newsworthy people who have a public presence of some sort, I'm guessing. And it was NOT obviously a political act, you just interpret it that way. Should the President be allowed to say that Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers? Should he be allowed to call the Bidens crooks without proof? Is that what you think "free speech" is all about?
Actually they discussed this very sequence of events in that podcast, it's all in the transcript. No, I am not going to summarize it for you. It's all there, one click away. You know what it is in there, up to you to decide to educate yourself or not.
But if Twitter is not a public space (it's a private one) and private spaces can limit speech, why can't they be allowed to limit speech on their platform? If they came out and said, we will no longer allow right-wing ideas on our site, although I don't know how they could define what that means, why shouldn't they be allowed to? What do they owe you or anyone? The "other" side could always start up their own social media platforms, can't they? No one is preventing them. Do you think many socialists write stuff on 4chan?
Of course he can say something offensive to your ears but not in the context of being the national leader. People want to hear what he has to say even if you don't. To censor his speech on a private twitter feed going to people who signed up to hear what he has to say is censorship. Who's being hurt by that. If you don't like what he has to say, don't listen. Cancel yoiur subscription to his twitter feed. Just like here in LuLa. And it should be applied to everyone. And that's where the problem really starts. You have private entities censoring speech that they think is offensive. That's OK but it has to be applied fairly.
Sure private entities are allowed to publish what they want. The NY Times does. But they have no protection of law from section 230. The reason the twitters were given this protection was to prevent them from censorsoring speech as the Times does in order to encourage internet expansion and use and allowing unimpeded speech. If a site wants to impede it, they shouldn't have legal protection. That's not protected by the constitution. Free speech is.
-
You are wrong.
The law was never intended for censorship. It was intended to allow companies to removed stuff like porn in their threads.
If they act like a publisher, then they should loose their liability protection.
Alan told me I should listen to what the President has to say. Stuff it.
-
You are wrong.
The law was never intended for censorship. It was intended to allow companies to removed stuff like porn in their threads.
If they act like a publisher, then they should loose their liability protection.
Go read the very first example in the transcript from that podcast above. What is the benefit to the commonwealth in allowing that kind of disinformation to proliferate just because some people think it falls under free speech? How is that different than shouting Fire in a theatre?
My understanding is that the free speech provision in the constitution is a limited thing that only prevents the government from shutting down people's speech. Not sure if or why it applies to social media without other legislation being involved.
You might be right about current provisions being challenged in court, things seem to be evolving way faster than what the original legislation was created for. So lawsuits may reach the court before Congress can get around to fixing things. Isn't an activist court just terrible? I wonder what the originalists would have to say about Twitter? (Just having some fun.)
-
Go read the very first example in the transcript from that podcast above. What is the benefit to the commonwealth in allowing that kind of disinformation to proliferate just because some people think it falls under free speech? How is that different than shouting Fire in a theatre?
My understanding is that the free speech provision in the constitution is a limited thing that only prevents the government from shutting down people's speech. Not sure if or why it applies to social media without other legislation being involved.
You might be right about current provisions being challenged in court, things seem to be evolving way faster than what the original legislation was created for. So lawsuits may reach the court before Congress can get around to fixing things. Isn't an activist court just terrible? I wonder what the originalists would have to say about Twitter? (Just having some fun.)
The SCOTUS already ruled on this, and they stated in 1946 that when a company's property becomes so big that it encompasses the publics discourse, then they are required to respect the rights of the public.
Marsh v. Alabama (1946) (https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/571/marsh-v-alabama)
-
Why is this so? Do you know this for sure because it sounds like an opinion to me, or maybe it's how you think it should work. Which is fair enough.
My understanding (from that podcast) is that social media can't be sued for libel for things contributors write. I don't know for a fact that they have to be fair-sided. Seems like a separate issue. Why do this think this is the case?
Surely they're allowed to shut down lies and disinformation. If it happens to come from one political party or another, or from one politician or another, is irrelevant. Go read the first few paragraphs of that transcript for an example. (When you're done, report back and summarize it for us. :) )
The protection law came from politicians. Why should they grant you protection so you can punish them if you don't like one side or the other. They're not stupid. From a public policy standpoint, I'm not happy that companies that control media stack the deck against politicians I support. WHile twitter has a right of free speech constitutionally, they have no right to protection from lawsuits unless granted by me through my reps. If they aren't going to play fair, and punish me and my representatives, I don't want them to have that protection. I want my representatives to take it away from them. If they still want the protection, then play fair. Respect everyone's speech.
-
Alan told me I should listen to what the President has to say. Stuff it.
No, I dont think Alan told you that. Just that the President should not be censored.
You are free to ignore him as you see fit.
-
Go read the very first example in the transcript from that podcast above. What is the benefit to the commonwealth in allowing that kind of disinformation to proliferate just because some people think it falls under free speech? How is that different than shouting Fire in a theatre?
My understanding is that the free speech provision in the constitution is a limited thing that only prevents the government from shutting down people's speech. Not sure if or why it applies to social media without other legislation being involved.
You might be right about current provisions being challenged in court, things seem to be evolving way faster than what the original legislation was created for. So lawsuits may reach the court before Congress can get around to fixing things. Isn't an activist court just terrible? I wonder what the originalists would have to say about Twitter? (Just having some fun.)
No one's shutting down free speech. We're discussing taking away their protection against lawsuits.
-
Alan told me I should listen to what the President has to say. Stuff it.
I never said you have to listen. Shut him off. Just don't shut off my right to listen.
-
Of course he can say something offensive to your ears but not in the context of being the national leader.
Absolute and utter bullshit.
Here's the deal. If Congress decides to eliminate Section 230, and whoever is president decides to sign it, then I'll live with it, unless the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. I think it is a lousy idea. But there are a lot of things that government does that I think are lousy ideas, so I'll just add that one to the list.
-
Absolute and utter bullshit.
Here's the deal. If Congress decides to eliminate Section 230, and whoever is president decides to sign it, then I'll live with it, unless the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. I think it is a lousy idea. But there are a lot of things that government does that I think are lousy ideas, so I'll just add that one to the list.
Section 230 is a law of the Congress, not part of the constitution. The protection it grants against being sued can be removed.
Where it can become a constitutional issue is if it remains, whether a litigant who sues can win a case against let's say Twitter if their action violated Section 230 in the process of free speech. So Twitter will argue that they were only exercising the right of free speech and they still should be protected. That could happen. That makes Congress getting rid of the Section more likely.
Frankly, I think what Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg said a few weeks ago, that Facebook doesn't want to decide on posts one way or the other, is the best approach. We want a free internet where everyone can say what they want. No one's objecting to limiting pornography, foul words, and stuff like that. We all know what we're talking about and that's political speech and positions on many of the important issues of the day. Let's not silence one side or the other.
-
silly. Nothing a president says is offensive.
That’s nearly as funny as “Technology changes nothing”
-
Section 230 is a law of the Congress, not part of the constitution. The protection it grants against being sued can be removed.
Where it can become a constitutional issue is if it remains, whether a litigant who sues can win a case against let's say Twitter if their action violated Section 230 in the process of free speech. So Twitter will argue that they were only exercising the right of free speech and they still should be protected. That could happen. That makes Congress getting rid of the Section more likely.
Frankly, I think what Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg said a few weeks ago, that Facebook doesn't want to decide on posts one way or the other, is the best approach. We want a free internet where everyone can say what they want. No one's objecting to limiting pornography, foul words, and stuff like that. We all know what we're talking about and that's political speech and positions on many of the important issues of the day. Let's not silence one side or the other.
Fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
Let me ask you are question? Do you want to require all TV stations to broadcast whatever and whenever this deity of yours wants to say something. Because quite frankly, sometimes I want to hear what he has to say, but most of the time I don't. If I don't want to listen to him, I want to be able to watch re-runs of Bewitched or something, and I can't do that if he is required to be on every channel. Next, I suppose you are going to want a law that disables the mute button on my remote whenever he speaks, so that if I am watching the news, and they start doing a new segment where they are rolling some tape of his remarks in the Rose Garden earlier that day, I can't hit the mute button, but instead I have to listen to him or turn off the TV altogether. It is completely absurd, and authoritarian I might aid.
-
Fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
Let me ask you are question? Do you want to require all TV stations to broadcast whatever and whenever this deity of yours wants to say something. Because quite frankly, sometimes I want to hear what he has to say, but most of the time I don't. If I don't want to listen to him, I want to be able to watch re-runs of Bewitched or something, and I can't do that if he is required to be on every channel. Next, I suppose you are going to want a law that disables the mute button on my remote whenever he speaks, so that if I am watching the news, and they start doing a new segment where they are rolling some tape of his remarks in the Rose Garden earlier that date, I can't hit the mute button, but instead I have to listen to him or turn off the TV altogether. It is completely absurd, and authoritarian I might aid.
TV stations are publishers. They can present whatever they want and do. CNN tries not to show Trump rallies while Fox does. That's perfectly OK for both of them. However, they are not protected by section 230 like Twitter is. Twitter is an interactive computer provider. Like the telephone company, they should not be stopping communications among their subscribers. If I'm calling you and want to discuss anything, they should not be interfering. That's why they were granted protection from lawsuits, to encourage a free interchange of ideas. If they are going to play politics, then I want their protection removed. Then they'll be publishers like the TV stations, publish what they like, and have to deal with lawsuits.
-
How did this get to 4 pages overnight?
I suggest that those commenting who have never actually seen "The Social Dilemma" documentary or had it explained by an adult should stop posting.
It is nothing about limiting your precious freedom.
Here is a comparison you may understand.
It is not about limiting a 14 old boy's freedom to take an assault rifle to a school and shoot it up.
It is about what subtle and not so subtle things influenced that 14 old boy to want to do that, or to commit suicide.
If you click on something, what supporting things are sent to you automatically? What like minded and perhaps radical people try to connect you that reinforce the pattern and lead to marginalisation?
How have you become a saleable commodity?
If you are just joining this post now I suggest you go back to the first page and only read about half way down before it became wacky.
If there is a moderator reading it is probably time to close the thread. It is now in space.