Facebook and Twitter CEOs grilled by Congress

[Dumb Ideologies]

Yuck. Grilled lizard is an acquired taste.

[Stylan]

This is a very, very tricky topic.

I don't agree with censorship of moderate conservatives, but this almost never happens. However, the recent Twitter pop-ups on Trump are very concerning. I do not like this.

That being said, the vast majority of people censored by Twitter and Facebook are literal Nazis or people who are harrasing others. I don't see a problem with that.

The solution is really just banning Twitter pop-ups on Trump, at least while he is still POTUS, and ensuring normal conservatives or those not engaging in violent rhetoric do not get censored.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So not anti trust. Just "you claimed what I said was a lie but no you"

[The Black Forrest]

Freedom of expression is an issue that's very close to my heart, especially if it occurs online. The thought of anyone having their account suspended or even deleted simply for tweeting, for instance, All Lives Matter, or Islam is not a religion of peace, or f*** communism, or f*** feminism,

People aren’t being suspended simply for posting “all lives matter”. It’s because of the other things trolling, peddling lies, and conspiracy theories and then getting angry when challenged.

If you want freedom of expression then you should support the ability to flag comments as disinformation or just out right wrong. Covid cures, Trump saying he won.......

MSM outlets pile on the pressure by further defaming and assassinating one's good character by implying that they are, e.g. a racist and a fascist for criticizing Islam or BLM, and spineless,

Hmmm? I suspect you mean Trump. The problem? He has shown all of that already.

cowardly employers more obsessed with monetary gain and/or political survival fire said individuals due to said pressure and character assassination,

Oh you mean businesses getting protested or boycotted. That is the right of the people. They were doing that even before there was a Net.

thereby sending a clear message to authoritarian regimes around the world that actually arrest and disappear people for this sort of thing,

You might have anarguement if this only happened to the people. It’s odd you think people protesting, boycotting, character assassinating is a problem when they go after Trump and or his supporters and you think that aids the authoritarians?

and in some cases, indirectly aiding and abetting said regimes, is a thought that should horrify any decent human being. The internet must remain as free and unrestricted as humanly possible. Social media censorship and MSM acquiescence to the narrow dictates of a far-left, cultural IdPol agenda must be resisted at all costs.

Hmmm? Flagging disinformation is not censorship. Getting punished for violating the rules (remember that neat little box you clicked saying you read and accept was written?) is not censorship.

Lies and disinformation does more harm to freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is at stake here for social media users around the globe. If the Democrats have their way and they win both Senate runoffs in Georgia, then they, Facebook, Twitter, and Google will have free rein to censor, curate, and block user content like the "newspaper publishers" rather than the platforms they seem to think they are. The Republicans must make a stand here and now or we, as internet users, are fucking screwed.

Ok. What “factual” posting has been removed?

[The Black Forrest]

This is a very, very tricky topic.

I don't agree with censorship of moderate conservatives, but this almost never happens. However, the recent Twitter pop-ups on Trump are very concerning. I do not like this.

That being said, the vast majority of people censored by Twitter and Facebook are literal Nazis or people who are harrasing others. I don't see a problem with that.

The solution is really just banning Twitter pop-ups on Trump, at least while he is still POTUS, and ensuring normal conservatives or those not engaging in violent rhetoric do not get censored.

People don’t run popup blockers

Trumpets are the only ones screaming about this.

Now if the democrats were spreading lies, disinformation, and “lets attack *insert what ever group is the current threat to the people*” then there is a valid complaint.

My wife's cousin is a trumpet. She got flagged twice for spreading covid misinformation and a disproven qanon conspiracy theory. The cousins views? “They are afraid of the TRUTH!”

[West Leas Oros 2]

Congress just wanted to grill for God’s sake!

[The Black Forrest]

Congress just wanted to grill for God’s sake!

Indeed. They want to show the people they actually do something.

[Major-Tom]

Free speech is a right exercised by individuals, free speech can be curtailed by private companies when you utilize their platform. People can say what they wish on, say, Twitter, but ultimately Twitter has the right to censor misleading facts and dangerous conspiracy theories. The conservative movement needs to stop victimizing themselves and playing martyr when it comes to this, I thought they were the party of free enterprise and tough guys, but god, watching them squirm over being told "you're lying" is pathetic.

If anything, I'd want Facebook and Twitter to be dragged through the coals for promoting algorithms that create echo chambers, spread the very disinformation they want to curtail, and for data-mining our citizens. But for fact-checking? Pffffft, don't be so sensitive.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

https://transparencyreport.google.com/youtube-policy/removals?hl=en

Another thing to keep in mind is that most removals are not for hate speech, violent extremism or other politically charged topics. Most removals are for things like spam, pornography, and child safety. Only a small fraction of removals are appealed.

These patterns should hold up for any large website.

[Necroghastia]

I'd respond to the OP's directly but too much of it would just be saying "that's not a thing that happens" "do you honestly think [democrats/facebook/twitter] are far left in the slightest," and/or "Source?"

As many have already said, no one's getting banned for the reasons GHK thinks they are. Are websites not allowed to set Terms of Service in your ideal world? I shudder to think of how utterly unusable anything would become then.

Anyway, time for everyone's favorite relevant xkcd:

[Greater Malegron]

Admittedly, Free speech is not a good idea. It’s abused to perpetuate bigotry and hate, and its been used by oppressors to keep the oppressed down. I say we should bar them from speaking.

[Torisakia]

While free speech is fine, I think that social media should be banned simply because NS counts as a social media website and, lets be honest, we could all do without this site.

[Aeritai]

While free speech is fine, I think that social media should be banned simply because NS counts as a social media website and, lets be honest, we could all do without this site.

Nah I rather not lose my Roleplaying buddies.

[Torisakia]

While free speech is fine, I think that social media should be banned simply because NS counts as a social media website and, lets be honest, we could all do without this site.

Nah I rather not lose my Roleplaying buddies.

OK keep everything but NSG. It'll be known as the Max Barry Compromise.

[Alternamerica]

While free speech is fine, I think that social media should be banned simply because NS counts as a social media website and, lets be honest, we could all do without this site.

But this is my post-Reddit safe space

[Xmara]

Here I thought this was gonna be a follow up to the antitrust suit.

[Alcala-Cordel]

It's funny watching people treat being fact-checked or banned for saying racist things like it's an Orwellian nightmare. Free speech doesn't and shouldn't allow for saying whatever youw ant without consequences

[The Black Forrest]

Here I thought this was gonna be a follow up to the antitrust suit.

Hmmm? Well now......start tagging Trumps bullshit and they talk about anti-trust.

[The Black Forrest]

It's funny watching people treat being fact-checked or banned for saying racist things like it's an Orwellian nightmare. Free speech doesn't and shouldn't allow for saying whatever youw ant without consequences

Indeed. Oh the oppression. People keep calling the ignorant bullshit. People should be able to say what they want and not be challenged!

[-Ra-]

Hawley calling them robber barons was interesting. Definitely starting to see a cleavage between the populist right and the traditionalists in the Republican Party.

[The Black Forrest]

Hawley calling them robber barons was interesting. Definitely starting to see a cleavage between the populist right and the traditionalists in the Republican Party.

The traditionalists are following the path of the liberal republicans.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

To answer your question: If we do make changes to Section 230, we ought to carefully consider the impact of our actions.

1) The software/tech industry is a particularly competitive and dynamic part of the US economy. We should avoid shooting ourselves in the foot on this, if possible.

2) A straight Section 230 repeal is actually likely to lead to less free speech online, not more.

3) Website owners have a valid interest in moderating their platforms. That needs to be balanced against other interests.

I'd also direct you to the Electronic Frontier Foundation if you care deeply about issues like freedom of speech and privacy online.

I found a relevant article

If I'm reading this correctly, what they're saying is both parties have it wrong and the solution is not to repeal or water down Section 230, but rather to break up Big Tech so that there is a greater diversity of platforms to choose from, each with their own distinct content moderation policies. Smaller platforms will no longer be nipped in the bud before they even have a chance to take off. I have no idea how this would happen in practice. I can see even more echo chambers being created.

Alternatively, nationalization could be an option. Social media giants owned by the U.S. federal government would be strictly bound by the laws and Constitution of the United States. The rules regarding protected free speech would apply just as much online as it would IRL. Content moderation would be strictly limited to banning strictly illegal content such as child pornography, doxxing, terrorism manuals, and threats and calls to violence and death. Anything that isn't protected by the First Amendment would be fair game. But nationalization would surely present its own set of issues such as concerns about digital privacy and government snooping, to name a few. WeChat,TiKtoK, and other Chinese-owned apps are commonly viewed with great suspicion for a very good reason.

As a free speech absolutist, I do not believe any kind of speech, even non-violent hate speech as well as misinformation, actual or perceived, should be censored outright. I can tolerate labels highlighting potential misinformation even if I may sometimes find them distasteful depending on the label and the offending tweet in question, but outright censoring tweets, deleting users, and blocking news articles from being shared is a potential slippery slope toward narrowing the field of acceptable discourse on just about anything and enforcing political bias. It's all part of a Left-led red terror to stamp out wrongthink. God forbid if Donald Trump actually gets deleted from Twitter.

One such slippery slope would involve banning users for tweeting All Lives Matter, or claiming there are only two genders (a claim I personally disagree with), or calling on all illegal immigrants to be rounded up and deported from a given country. The second one actually got me in trouble on this very site alone even though it falls well within the mainstream of political discourse.

[Shofercia]

What's with Dorsey's "Osama bin Laden" beard? Is he still unaware that bin Laden was a bad guy or something? Also, if you're making Ted Cruz look good, there's something wrong with how you're running your business.

As for Section 230, let's either get rid of that, or stop FB's and Twitter's patent trolling, so that other rivals can rise up. When you have a virtual monopoly and special protections, that's seriously fucked up.

[Comfed]

If it’s my private site, I should be able to do whatever I want on it - that is my right because the website is private proprety.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

I'd also direct you to the Electronic Frontier Foundation if you care deeply about issues like freedom of speech and privacy online.

I found a relevant article

If I'm reading this correctly, what they're saying is both parties have it wrong and the solution is not to repeal or water down Section 230, but rather to break up Big Tech so that there is a greater diversity of platforms to choose from, each with their own distinct content moderation policies. Smaller platforms will no longer be nipped in the bud before they even have a chance to take off. I have no idea how this would happen in practice. I can see even more echo chambers being created.

Alternatively, nationalization could be an option. Social media giants owned by the U.S. federal government would be strictly bound by the laws and Constitution of the United States. The rules regarding protected free speech would apply just as much online as it would IRL. Content moderation would be strictly limited to banning strictly illegal content such as child pornography, doxxing, terrorism manuals, and threats and calls to violence and death. Anything that isn't protected by the First Amendment would be fair game. But nationalization would surely present its own set of issues such as concerns about digital privacy and government snooping, to name a few. WeChat,TiKtoK, and other Chinese-owned apps are commonly viewed with great suspicion for a very good reason.

As a free speech absolutist, I do not believe any kind of speech, even non-violent hate speech as well as misinformation, actual or perceived, should be censored outright. I can tolerate labels highlighting potential misinformation even if I may sometimes find them distasteful depending on the label and the offending tweet in question, but outright censoring tweets, deleting users, and blocking news articles from being shared is a potential slippery slope toward narrowing the field of acceptable discourse on just about anything and enforcing political bias. It's all part of a Left-led red terror to stamp out wrongthink. God forbid if Donald Trump actually gets deleted from Twitter.

One such slippery slope would involve banning users for tweeting All Lives Matter, or claiming there are only two genders (a claim I personally disagree with), or calling on all illegal immigrants to be rounded up and deported from a given country. The second one actually got me in trouble on this very site alone even though it falls well within the mainstream of political discourse.

For me, nationalization is a non-starter for some of the reasons you alluded to. It puts the government in the difficult position of moderating speech, and would create significant privacy issues in my view. Having private companies operate these sorts of online platforms provides a degree of separation between users and the government. That forces the government to go to court if they want to subpoena the company for user data.

A good place to start would be to require websites to publish transparency reports on how they moderate their site, to require that users are notified of when (and why) they are subject to moderation, and to require websites to provide a meaningful appeals process.

Those requirements should probably be limited to large websites operated by for-profit companies.