[Sargon of Akkad] Silicon Valley should not be the sole arbiter of who is able to talk to the world.
It's a very touchy subject. Half of the US is pissed over social media censoring their team. The other half presumably thinks it's great - cuz they happen to share ideology with social media.
And then I see social media going the way of the MSM, steadily losing audience and impact. People will either lose interest in social media [which would be a gift from Heaven, IMO] and / or start their own flavor of social media [again like MSM] and there would be no place for the two to meet and bicker over their difference.
The absolute worst thing that could happen IMO would be for the government to step in and regulate.
Obviously there is a problem with online censorship, but I do not believe government regulation is the solution. Slippery slopes are dangerous and should always be avoided because eventually everyone/thing ends up sliding to the bottom. I do not know what the solution is, but this cry for government regulation is the worst possible option.
In the first place, the web is a worldwide phenomenon and there are nearly 200 separate and distinct national governments. Which government do you suppose should do the regulating, or should each regulate specifically for their citizens? This would create, and already is creating, a mishmash of regulations that would/will make the web impossible to navigate and impossible for private companies to comply with without unimaginable costs and loss of the open framework of the web. There is also the EU, consisting of a coalition of many separate governments, and the UN, of which almost all countries are members. Do we really want to turn regulatory power over the web to a monolithic regional or world authority?
Still, simply allowing private companies to make their own rules has become problematic because of how the web is set up. Private platforms are being forced to censor by domain registars, hosting service companies...even a credit card company. Conceivably any company or component of or on the web could censor or force others to censor. This constitutes another slippery slope, one created by private corporations instead of government, but no less Orwellian.
The internet was initially created by the US government and the world wide web by Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee, who freely gifted the web to the world, neither taking out a patent nor receiving any royalties. ICANN, a non-profit that includes governments, businesses, and academia among its stakeholders, now controls the DNS. So who "owns" the web? Nobody. It is simply too massive and multifaceted to completely control or contain...the deep web comprises the bulk of it, and of that, only the dark web is even minimally policed. The open web that we can easily access and is the part we are talking about, is already under many government and corporate controls.
Again, I do not know what the solution is, but one suggestion I have is that any company that took/takes government monies or received/receives tax subsidies be held to government standards, much as free speech is constitutionally protected on public college and university campuses. This would only apply in the US, obviously, but would be a step in the right direction and perhaps set an example for the rest of the world.
I like Sargon's suggestion that social media companies should have to clearly state what actions will get you kicked off in their TOS, and then when they kick someone off for a TOS violation, they should have to be specific about what rules were broken by what actions. As it is, the rules are vague, as are the reasons given for banning people. I think that leaves the door open to abuse. In the present context that abuse is manifesting as an attempt to influence the outcome of an election, maybe all future elections, so it's extremely serious.
Many businesses here post signs reserving the right to refuse service to anyone. They cannot legally do so arbitrarily, however, as certain classes of people are protected, and various laws apply at various levels of government.
Likewise, many websites state they can ban people for any reason, but also list under what jurisdiction they are governed.
I understand what it is that you, Craig, and others I have discussed this issue with want...a clear and fair policy for all. And while that sounds good on its surface, I tend to think it would amount to a quick "fix" that'll bite us in the ass, and sooner rather than later.
For the very reason I support states rights over all-encompassing federal law, and Brexit, as well as policies such as those being adopted in Poland, Hungary, and Italy over subordination to the EU, I do not want to see some international authority ruling the internet. And since Craig is speaking as a Brit, you as a Canadian, and me as an American...wouldn't an 'internet bill of rights' or any law than spans across borders necessarily be governed by some international authority, likely the UN? I have always advocated for our withdrawal from the UN, certainly not its expansion.
As I said, I don't know the answer. But I know I don't want more governance. I think my proposal is a fair one for the US. If a company benefits from public funds, then they should be held to the same standards as the government, just as public schools are supposed to be here.
Another thing I would like to see is a sort of internet speakers' corner. A basic platform where free speech is allowed that is owned by no private entity. It could be funded publicly, just as parks are. And if folks want all the bells and whistles, they are free to go to a private platform. Free or open source apps could be allowed. This would be akin to free events being allowed in public venues, but hey, you're going to have to pay the big bucks/follow the rules of Cedar Point, Disney, etc. if you want the fancy rides and amenities.
I have never seen this video before.
I find it strangely, ... hot!
"You want thought police, is that correct?"
No, I think maybe it should be illegal for social media companies to be thought police. So basically the opposite of that.
No, I don't want thought police, I prefer if people can speak their minds whether I agree with them or not. There are some people I'm not interested in interacting with, but I just block them, I don't feel the need to have them kicked off.
As for HATE speech, as long as you're not calling for violence, I think you should be able to say whatever you like, regardless of what emotions are expressed.
I don't know
Yet if someone posts on fb calling for the assassination of trump, fb will remove that post. Are you going to defend their freedom of speech rights, or are you only upset if a conservative is banned?
They all went nuts over kathy griffin. Some advocated prosecution.
If someone called for the presidents assassination on social media, it's likely that person would be visited by the secret service. [Fair warning Flanders!]
This is why the left can't have nice things, they have no overarching ethical standards. Any pretense at morality is simply about gaining an advantage and can be forgotten or turned on its head at any time.
I don't think anyone should be allowed to call for people to be murdered regardless of their political stripes, because IT'S WRONG.
But the left doesn't believe in moral absolutes, it's about what's right for them right now. And that's why everything the left touches turns to shit, because they don't respect rules, rules are something they use to control others, not something they believe they must adhere to. So you get corruption and conflict, unfair advantage and unjust abuse.
nobody should be in charge of who can use the internet. Unless it is a Muslim then cut them off ASAP
BIG GOVERNMENT BIG GOVERNMENT BIG GOVERNMENT