@allen's banner p

allen


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:57:28 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 282

allen


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:57:28 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 282

Verified Email

Yeah, I think part of the issue is that all big tech companies had to develop censorship technologies and capabilities just to comply with copyright laws. So once they had the process in place they thought "why are we just using this for copyright stuff?"

This is a good point that I hadn't previously considered. They had a previously designed compliance tool available to them, and in that case, why not use it to make their platform a better and more pleasant place (however they define it)?

You just follow people you want to hear from, and unfollow them if you don't like what they are saying. And you just don't see things you don't follow. Or shared follow lists become the norm, so instead of companies doing blacklisting of content the individuals are doing mass whitelisting.

If I'm looking to consume or ingest information (or keep up with friends), this is the way to go. The downside for companies is a lack of discoverability, which limits the time you spend on their platform.

I'm sure a large chunk of especially social media company's desire to curate/editorialize user content is a desire to keep users cozy, and incentivize time spent on the platform.

This is roughly where I land with Section 230. The intention was to allow large tech companies (and small blogs, etc.) to host user comments without taking on liability for hosting illegal or defamatory content. Maybe I'm reading between the lines too much here, but the intent appeared to be to shield companies who had user-generated content from liability for content they didn't control.

As large companies work more and more toward controlling what users can say on their platform, the argument could be made that they are getting closer and close to editors, who choose what content goes in their paper. And if you're picking and choosing who can say what on your platform, and are telling users "you can't say this, it's misinformation", it sounds like editorial activities, and it certainly seems like platforms should have the capability (and as such, the responsibility) to police libelous and other content.

Were I able to dictate my preference to the big tech companies, my idealized solution would be a situation where the tech company itself doesn't police anything stricter than US guidelines, but provide an API for third parties to review and filter posts that users can subscribe to. You want to hide all posts with profanity? Choose that provider. Want to hide all posts with misgendering? There's a filter for that too. But then the user is doing the "editing" rather than the platform.