1. 5
  1.  

  2. 22

    The article doesn’t attempt to explain why legislation isn’t a solution, which is disappointing. Of course technologists are going to think that the solution is technology.

    1. 8

      Yeah, it also lost all credibility when it started comparing big tech to the Ministry of Truth, a comparison that is quickly as becoming as overused as comparison’s to Hitler. Of course technologists are going to think the answer lies in technology, they can’t see past their own nose to understand that not everyone being affected by these issues can utilize those technologies, though. Not every person has the technical understanding or even the access to the equipment to stand up a Mastodon server to get their daily news. The law is going to have to step in at some point.

      1. 4

        Yeah, it also lost all credibility when it started comparing big tech to the Ministry of Truth, a comparison that is quickly as becoming as overused as comparison’s to Hitler.

        Interesting take. So the article lost credibility by … making a comparison that, in your view, is too popular?

        1. 2

          You say too popular, I say vague and hyperbolic. You can’t just write a blog post, compare something about contemporary tech to Orwell’s 1984, and expect blanket approval. It’s low effort and I’m calling it out as such.

      2. 3

        I think the problem with a lot of the more dubious content posted on these platforms is that it’s often not strictly illegal; certainly not in the US where free speech tends to extend further than most European countries. Much of the content we’re talking about here is certainly unpleasant or outright lies, but not illegal.

        Things that are outright illegal such as pedophelia, violence, threats, and the like already tend to be removed fairly quickly without much fuss. But stuff like “I don’t like black people”, “black people are of a lower IQ”, or burning a cross are offensive and stupid, but AFAIK not illegal.

        It seems to me that just repealing Section 230 or enacting some other legislation is not really all that effective as such against the more common versions of hate speech, misinformation, or other problematic content one might encounter.

        I don’t really know what a solution to this might be though; I’m not so sure federation is the answer either (actually, I’m pretty sure it’s not).

      3. 5

        It requires a change in mentality for the average Internet citizen, to seek out and demand alternatives.

        Sounds like the solution isn’t technology either, it’s social.

        1. 4

          This lost me within the first paragraph. Others are not required to use their own resources to publish your chosen speech for free. Declining such a transaction is not “censorship”. Seek remedy in antitrust law IMO.

          1. 3

            It’s absolutely censorship, done by powerful entities that control ostensibly-public and widely used mediums of information flow. It’s really no different from the majority of the citizens in some place where a particular religious tradition is strong ordering the local library to remove books whose contents offend that religious tradition. This doesn’t prevent other libraries from stocking those books. It doesn’t even prevent the New York Post from writing an approving article detailing exactly what those banned books are, with the implication that you might want to read them yourself. It’s still censorship.

            1. 2

              I can publish on the internet myself for less than five dollars per month using a common carrier. You’re entitled to speech, not venue. (N.B. And please don’t pretend that political disagreements are akin to religious discrimination.)

            2. 3

              Same here. I have a lot of sympathy for individuals or groups who are caught up by social media moderation - sometimes in error - but to complain that the freakin’ New York Post, a newspaper that’s part of one of the largest media companies in the world is being “silenced” is beyond silly.

              The Post is free to promote the story on its own property - and when I checked yesterday it didn’t seem to bother to do so.

            3. 2

              Does anyone else remember protesting the CDA in the 90s? The “decency” provisions included in the original were awful and would have seriously curtailed some very useful speech (especially medical info) if they hadn’t been ruled unconstitutional.

              That all makes me feel very weird as I try to argue against some of the assaults on section 230 today.