Tech Giants Shutting Down Violent Social Media Cesspools

[Janus]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Snapchat permanently banned Trumps account today, too. 

The city of New York has backed out of all contracts with the Trump organization.

Marriott and many other companies have pulled contributions from all congress people who opposed certifying Biden’s win.

I’m pretty sure Hertz just said they would even rent Trump a car and Nathan’s wouldn’t serve him a hot dog.

Okay... that last one was made up, but wow!

Josh Hawley ( The Senator who raised the objection to counting the Electoral votes even after the attack on the Capital), has also had a book deal with Simon and Schuster canceled.

Of course, he went on FOX to cry about "First amendment rights".  But this has nothing to do with that.  This was purely a business decision. The publisher simply felt that doing the book deal with him would be worse for business than the loss of profit from not selling it.  They are perfectly free to choose not to do business with someone if they feel it is in their best interest. 

This is capitalism;  Something you would think that a Republican senator would be quite familiar with.

[dimreepr]

I feel sorry for Trump and his ilk, imagine never being satisfied with the only arrow in one's quiver... 

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Janus said:

This is capitalism;  Something you would think that a Republican senator would be quite familiar with.

Libertarianism, too. It seems ideologies go out the window when you become trapped in a cult

[iNow]

Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, supported the move for security reasons, but also acknowledged that this step of removing users sets a dangerous precedent.

He went on to discuss the BlueSky initiative which would basically force media platforms like his and FB and others to make their code open source and let anyone who wants to create platforms inline with their own views and moderation preferences. With this, decision making authority and power to deactivate accounts would no longer be so centralized and the market of ideas would determine which sites prosper and which sites wither. 

https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/15/twitters-vision-of-decentralization-could-also-be-the-far-rights-internet-endgame/

Considered in a vacuum, I’m attracted to this approach. It appeals to my own sense of freedom and autonomy. Considered in context of our current world where active and government run disinformation campaigns that lead neighbors to commit violence against each other’s children, however, I’m reluctant and hesitant to remove all brakes and stopgaps. 

From the article above:

Quote

Bluesky is aiming to build a “durable” web standard that will ultimately ensure that platforms like Twitter have less centralized responsibility in deciding which users and communities have a voice on the internet. While this could protect speech from marginalized groups, it may also upend modern moderation techniques and efforts to prevent online radicalization.

<...>
A central concern is that commoditizing decentralized platforms through efforts like bluesky will provide a more accessible route for extremists kicked off current platforms to maintain an audience and provide casual internet users a less janky path towards radicalization.

As with so many topics in our shared governance, the tip of the spear here pokes at which limits are appropriate and how to balance those limits with openness, not whether any limits should exist at all. If BlueSky became a reality, what limits would you support? Would it even be possible to limit it, and if not, maybe it shouldn’t be built at all?

These are hard questions, and I’m left wondering how the most articulate free speech supporters of centuries past might adjust their stances in the face of our current world with ISIS, child porn, the 2nd rising of Nazis, and all the rest.

 

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

[MigL]

Somehow we have to find a balance between voicing an opinion, which should have no limits imposed, and, disseminating that opinion to the masses, which should have limits, checks, balances, and possible arbitration.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Somehow we have to find a balance between voicing an opinion, which should have no limits imposed, and, disseminating that opinion to the masses, which should have limits, checks, balances, and possible arbitration.

We have found a witch, may we burn her?

[iNow]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Somehow we have to find a balance between voicing an opinion, which should have no limits imposed, and, disseminating that opinion to the masses, which should have limits, checks, balances, and possible arbitration.

I tend to agree, but aren’t we already pretty much there with existing platforms and moderation policies?

[MigL]

Not necessarily, INow.
Where are the checks and balances, for FOX News ?
Or, for providers that host QAnon sites and Forums ?
Or sites that advocate insurrections and the overturning of valid elections ?

[iNow]

The major sites are shutting them down. Are you suggesting the government should shutdown all sites that host that content? If not, I’m unclear what you’re suggesting

[Ken Fabian]

Am I correct in interpreting the US prohibition on Congress restricting the rights of a free press as affirming the right of media proprietors to express partisan political views and use their papers to promote them? That seems to include the right to NOT promote views they disagree with and even allowing publishing of falsehoods - with not very compensatory right (if you can afford it) to seek legal redress for slander. It is difficult for me to interpret the deplatforming by social media companies as different to a newpaper editor choosing promote some kinds and to leave out some kinds of content, or to refusing to publish letters to editor.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Am I correct in interpreting the US prohibition on Congress restricting the rights of a free press as affirming the right of media proprietors to express partisan political views and use their papers to promote them? That seems to include the right to NOT promote views they disagree with and even allowing publishing of falsehoods - with not very compensatory right (if you can afford it) to seek legal redress for slander. It is difficult for me to interpret the deplatforming by social media companies as different to a newpaper editor choosing promote some kinds and to leave out some kinds of content, or to refusing to publish letters to editor.

Exactly right, Ken. In much the same way, the freedom OF religion protected by the US Constitution is also equally a freedom FROM religion for those like me who don’t practice it. 

While the concept of free speech is involved here, the legal protection of it is not. To use your comparison, newspaper editors are not required to print your opinions or allow you to share them on their pages if they don’t wish to.

[iNow]

On the other side of this coin, Poland’s far right wing PM has proposed (in the name of free speech) imposing heavy fines on any social media companies who ban accounts and fail to restore those banned. He plans to lobby the EU to do the same.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55678502

Quote

Poland's government has proposed a new law to stop social media platforms deleting content or banning users who do not break Polish laws.

The proposed bill would see social networks fined up to 50 million zloty (£9.8m, $13.4m) for failing to restore deleted posts or accounts.

Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro announced the "freedom of speech protection" bill on Friday.

The law would also establish a "freedom of speech council".

The council would be able to order social networks such as Facebook or Twitter to restore deleted content, or unblock a user's account following a review, Mr Ziobro said. 

Social media users in Poland who had been blocked or had content deleted would be able to complain directly to the platform, which would have to respond within 24 hours.

If a social media company refused to comply with an order, the council would be able to issue a fine of between 50,000 and 50 million zloty.

Mr Ziobro leads a hard-right junior coalition partner in the Polish government. His party claims that traditional Roman Catholic values are under threat from LGBT rights.

 

[Danijel Gorupec]

Hmm... In this case, I wonder if freedom of speech includes a right to create spamming bots. After all, spamming bots are just an information technology that I should be able to use to spread my speech. Or otherwise, where is that important line between spamming manually and making a script that does the same - I guess, they didn't explain this in their proposition?

...

(Btw, maybe we should also take a quick look at search engines and rights of their owners to moderate search results - like result ranking.  I just read Google did something particular in Australia.)

[MigL]

I would guess that any hard right ( or hard left ) Government that has aspirations of dictatorship ( Poland maybe ? ) would be trying to force established  social media out, so that a Government run/controlled media can more easily disseminate Government propaganda.
Makes it much easier to control the people.

[CharonY]

I wonder whether specific antitrust rules could be applied to companies that provide services related to news or other forms of information dissemination. A big issue there is, of course that with larger variety folks might just create their own bubble (such as parler). Still not certain what a good solution would be.

Fundamentally it is an issue of trust. Do we trust companies? Random folks on the internet? Governments? 

[MigL]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

On the other side of this coin, Poland’s far right wing PM has proposed (in the name of free speech) imposing heavy fines on any social media companies who ban accounts and fail to restore those banned.

Seems Poland is not alone.
The left wing Mexican Government is looking at a similar proposal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/01/16/mexico-poland-social-media-trump/

[iNow]

It’s fascinating watching this story evolve and unfold in real time. 

[iNow]

This comparison with guests at a cocktail party sums it up well for me:

https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/this-cult-is-ruining-peoples-lives 

Quote

This social network is like a party I’m throwing at my house, and you’re all invited.  So here’s the deal.  I’m not gonna write a whole list of rules on a chalkboard like I’m your third-grade substitute teacher.  I don’t mind you being rowdy because this is a fun party in my house.  But if you cross the line, I’ll kick you out on your ass.  Where is the line?  I’m not going to try to explain it to you, so just keep yourself in check so you don’t cross it.

But I’m not going to make any pretense here that I’m “fair” or “objective”.  If I like you, I’ll probably let you get away with more.  If I don’t like you but you’re still making the party cool, I’ll probably cut you some slack.  You might get a warning, or you might not.  Look, I’m partying too, and I don’t always have time to do warnings.  Sometimes there will be a misunderstanding and I’ll kick you out when I should not have, and maybe I’ll regret it later.  But probably not.

But if you’re a real ass, you’ll be kicked out so hard that you’ll be staggering your drunken way down the street, mumbling to yourself about how unfair it was, and hearing the loud music from my amazing party which will be going on without you.  And we won’t even miss you.

So don’t complain to me about my party.  Behave yourself and know that I am arbitrary and capricious in defense of the rocking time we are having.  And don’t ask me to be “fair” because I’m just not.

 

[iNow]

And so the next chapter begins... what comes next is anyone’s guess. 

https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/19/apple-confirms-it-will-allow-parler-to-return-to-app-store/

Quote

Apple will reinstate Parler on its App Store following its multi-month ban ... Apple’s response explains how Parler violated its policies but said it [Apple] has engaged in extensive conversions with Parler’s team since the app’s removal. It also says Parler’s proposed updates to the app, its content and its moderation practices will allow it to be approved for reinstatement to the App Store immediately upon its release.

 

[iNow]

Parler comes back to the App Store on Monday. 
 

https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/5/17/22441143/parler-apple-app-store-hate-speech
 

Quote

In order for Parler to comply with Apple’s guidelines, it had to walk back its “anything goes” approach to potentially harmful speech and create a more restrictive version of its app just for iOS devices. Parler says it will start using AI to detect hate speech and block those posts in this new “Parler Lite,” according to the Washington Post. Meanwhile, Parler will continue to operate a less restricted version of its app on other platforms, including Google’s Android.

Parler’s splintered return to the mainstream internet is just another example of the increasingly polarized nature of political discussion on social media. Platforms like Parler are capitalizing on the demand for a social media network where people can say anything they want, at a time when companies like Facebook and Twitter have introduced more rules to limit harmful content.