Facebook and Twitter CEOs grilled by Congress

[Senkaku]

It's all part of a Left-led red terror to stamp out wrongthink. God forbid if Donald Trump actually gets deleted from Twitter.

suggesting that individuals getting banned from a private social media site is equivalent to state terrorism is just not just unhinged and hysterical, it's trivializing actual state terrorism, a well-documented phenomenon throughout history and around the world in the present which I would've thought someone who makes so much noise about hating the CCP, one of its most artful practitioners, would treat with even a fraction of the seriousness it deserves

[Alcala-Cordel]

[Cultural Posadism]

Sucks that the thread is inherently tainted by the deranged right-wing extremism of its OP, because the issue itself is interesting.

I'll say this: if private online platforms must exist, they should also have the right to police their own content, specially if said platforms could run the risk of legal consequences if they happened to actively or passively allow the publication and reproduction of illegal content. However, the fact of the matter is that there is currently an oligopoly in social media, and in online platforms in general, and that creates multiple problems. One problem it creates is that, if you or your content lose access to certain platforms, on a practical level your ability to participate in open public discourse becomes negligible, even if your political freedoms are still very much being legally protected. That's waaaaaay too much political power put in the hands of a handful of corporations whose main motivation has nothing to do with creating a healthy and free environment for political discussions.

IMHO, big social media platforms like Facebook ought to be hit with the anti-monopoly ban hammer and either broken apart or nationalized.

[Albrenia]

Sucks that the thread is inherently tainted by the deranged right-wing extremism of its OP, because the issue itself is interesting.

I'll say this: if private online platforms must exist, they should also have the right to police their own content, specially if said platforms could run the risk of legal consequences if they happened to actively or passively allow the publication and reproduction of illegal content. However, the fact of the matter is that there is currently an oligopoly in social media, and in online platforms in general, and that creates multiple problems. One problem it creates is that, if you or your content lose access to certain platforms, on a practical level your ability to participate in open public discourse becomes negligible, even if your political freedoms are still very much being legally protected. That's waaaaaay too much political power put in the hands of a handful of corporations whose main motivation has nothing to do with creating a healthy and free environment for political discussions.

IMHO, big social media platforms like Facebook ought to be hit with the anti-monopoly ban hammer and either broken apart or nationalized.

I'd say a bit of both. Break up the big platforms, but nationalise one of the fragments with heavy anti-bias rules to stop them becoming propaganda wings of the current governments.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I would never use a social network that is owned and operated by the US government. I'm a pretty light social media user as it is.

[Cultural Posadism]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I would never use a social network owned and operated by the US government. I'm a pretty light social media user as it is.

Give all of the social networks to the government of Tuvalu.

[Alcala-Cordel]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I would never use a social network owned and operated by the US government. I'm a pretty light social media user as it is.

To be fair companies aren't really better. Not only is the government involved but the companies will sell your data.

[Cultural Posadism]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I would never use a social network owned and operated by the US government. I'm a pretty light social media user as it is.

To be fair companies aren't really better. Not only is the government involved but the companies will sell your data.

Data should be a public asset. Even from a free market capitalist perspective, its current concentration in the hands of Google and Facebook is a disaster for fair competition, innovation and consumer rights.

[Shazbotdom]

I love how the fact that they are doing this to Facebook and Twitter, yet Parler banned a friend of mine for voicing opinions that are left-wing. Maybe Congress should grill their CEO? Oh, wait, they'll only do that if it's something that goes against right-wingers.



Hypocrits.

[Shazbotdom]

To be fair companies aren't really better. Not only is the government involved but the companies will sell your data.

Data should be a public asset. Even from a free market capitalist perspective, its current concentration in the hands of Google and Facebook is a disaster for fair competition, innovation and consumer rights.

Ahhhh no.

They own the servers, they pay to keep the servers operational, then they should be able to operate those servers how they see fit. They don't guide the flow of information on the internet, and if you wanted to, you could use one of the other 5 or 6 search engines in existence to find whatever information you want.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Data should be a public asset. Even from a free market capitalist perspective, its current concentration in the hands of Google and Facebook is a disaster for fair competition, innovation and consumer rights.

Ahhhh no.

They own the servers, they pay to keep the servers operational, then they should be able to operate those servers how they see fit. They don't guide the flow of information on the internet, and if you wanted to, you could use one of the other 5 or 6 search engines in existence to find whatever information you want.

I think you could argue that people (that is, individuals) should have some kind of "ownership" or interest over the data they help to generate. We do that for certain kinds of data, like educational, financial, and medical records.

I don't think that data should become a public asset, though. I'm not sure how that would work.

[Shazbotdom]

Ahhhh no.

They own the servers, they pay to keep the servers operational, then they should be able to operate those servers how they see fit. They don't guide the flow of information on the internet, and if you wanted to, you could use one of the other 5 or 6 search engines in existence to find whatever information you want.

I think you could argue that people (that is, individuals) should have some kind of "ownership" or interest over the data they help to generate. We do that for certain kinds of data, like educational, financial, and medical records.

I don't think that data should become a public asset, though. I'm not sure how that would work.

But people do have ownership of their information. They have the right and ability to delete any and all information that they post on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc off of those services. BUT, if that information breaks the Terms of Service of whatever they post on, that service has the right and ability to delete and censor any information that they feel is in violation of their ToS.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

I think you could argue that people (that is, individuals) should have some kind of "ownership" or interest over the data they help to generate. We do that for certain kinds of data, like educational, financial, and medical records.

I don't think that data should become a public asset, though. I'm not sure how that would work.

But people do have ownership of their information. They have the right and ability to delete any and all information that they post on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc off of those services. BUT, if that information breaks the Terms of Service of whatever they post on, that service has the right and ability to delete and censor any information that they feel is in violation of their ToS.

I'm thinking more about records that get generated in the background which are then stored, shared, bought and sold. Information about your identity, activities, and interests is a valuable commodity.

[Shazbotdom]

But people do have ownership of their information. They have the right and ability to delete any and all information that they post on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc off of those services. BUT, if that information breaks the Terms of Service of whatever they post on, that service has the right and ability to delete and censor any information that they feel is in violation of their ToS.

I'm thinking more about records that get generated in the background which are then stored, shared, bought and sold. Information about your identity, activities, and interests is a valuable commodity.

Should they really be owners of information that is auto-generated by the software? And they have the choice for that information to be generated. Their choice is to not sign up for that service in the first place.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

I'm thinking more about records that get generated in the background which are then stored, shared, bought and sold. Information about your identity, activities, and interests is a valuable commodity.

Should they really be owners of information that is auto-generated by the software? And they have the choice for that information to be generated. Their choice is to not sign up for that service in the first place.

I think it's something to think about, especially as digital services become more intertwined with daily life. A few years ago, iRobot (maker of those little robotic vaccum cleaners) announced plans to sell data about the layout of their users' homes, and people lost their shit.

Asking people to live like digital hermits isn't realistic, I think.

[Aclion]

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.

Really I think that ultimately the issue is that the idea that people shouldn't be targeted for their political affiliations has broken down, and it needs to be made a protected class

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Sucks that the thread is inherently tainted by the deranged right-wing extremism of its OP, because the issue itself is interesting.

I'll say this: if private online platforms must exist, they should also have the right to police their own content, specially if said platforms could run the risk of legal consequences if they happened to actively or passively allow the publication and reproduction of illegal content. However, the fact of the matter is that there is currently an oligopoly in social media, and in online platforms in general, and that creates multiple problems. One problem it creates is that, if you or your content lose access to certain platforms, on a practical level your ability to participate in open public discourse becomes negligible, even if your political freedoms are still very much being legally protected. That's waaaaaay too much political power put in the hands of a handful of corporations whose main motivation has nothing to do with creating a healthy and free environment for political discussions.

IMHO, big social media platforms like Facebook ought to be hit with the anti-monopoly ban hammer and either broken apart or nationalized.

How would you break it apart, when that inherently means dividing up their user community? Would it be geographical groups, or by age, or by interest subjects?

If you don't divide them at all, but just create a few clones of Facebook, all with the same users and content, aren't you putting a lot of faith in the new proprietors to strike the right balance between authenticity and new features, to retain all their users? I think every one of them will see the best course to be "authenticity" ... just like the old Facebook ... and as soon as one puts a foot wrong they will lose so many users they'll be on the rocks. At best you'll have two distinctly different services catering to different types of users (eg, Adult Facebook with nudity, swearing and legal drug use; and All-Ages Facebook with those things banned). At worst though, you'll end up with just one service, because it's hard to beat the principle that most people want to "be" where there's the most people.

Generally I believe in nationalizing businesses that have such potential to be run unethically. But it works best for commodities: those things which people don't care the origin of, in which quality is quite standardized, and the price is all they care about. I think a lot of Facebook users would right away find fault with the quality, and question where their money (mainly eyeballs on ads) was going, if they knew Facebook was owned by the government. It's just about impossible to hit that ideal of a government business not requiring subsidies but also not making a profit (that is resented because it's a "tax by stealth" while for a private business it's actually a positive thing: it means the product is popular, it means the company will stay in business, and it might even mean improvements in the future).

It would be better for government to start with a clean slate. The service is free (no ads, ie subsidized by government). The service has transparent terms regarding information ownership, privacy, and censorship. A constitution rather than just Terms of Service. Perhaps democratically elected moderators, and a quasi-legal appeals process with volunteer prosecution and defence. Anything else that could be expected to please new users, without stepping outside the envelope of a not-for-profit community service. Anything that works, Facebook will copy, but further innovations could maintain the momentum of being new, and therefore better. Perhaps the new government service would run Facebook right out of business, but that's not the aim. Facebook's remaining users being a subset of the new service's users, would be good enough. It would force them to move ground, and please some of the people who now refuse to use Facebook.

Both ways of "nationalization" are risky for government, but the government trying and failing to compete in the market (the second way) would be less egregious than buying Facebook and running it into the ground.

[Ethel mermania]

I think you could argue that people (that is, individuals) should have some kind of "ownership" or interest over the data they help to generate. We do that for certain kinds of data, like educational, financial, and medical records.

I don't think that data should become a public asset, though. I'm not sure how that would work.

But people do have ownership of their information. They have the right and ability to delete any and all information that they post on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc off of those services. BUT, if that information breaks the Terms of Service of whatever they post on, that service has the right and ability to delete and censor any information that they feel is in violation of their ToS.

Not quite true, when you open up Facebook's or any web page you are passing unique information about yourself to the page. (Vpn's work a little differentially).

[Sungoldy-China]

They can censor the speech posted on their platform anytime, and the state needs to ensure that there is no monopoly.

Break up these big companies, prohibit these platforms from operating other businesses, and ensure that everyone can find the platforms they want to post their speeches without having to worry about life or work

[Page]

There's no happy ending to this story. These corporations being free to do whatever they want is horrifying and government control over social media is horrifying in a different way. It's a battle of the two groups of people you can trust the least for power.

[Heloin]

They can censor the speech posted on their platform anytime, and the state needs to ensure that there is no monopoly.

These are two points that have little to do with each other.

Break up these big companies,

How would that be possible without killing social media? It's a hard ask for people to change their passwords when there is a big leak, breaking up facebook would force a dozen different platforms on people who'd rather you didn't do that. Congrats, you've failed and instead made everyone angry.

prohibit these platforms from operating other businesses,

I'm unsure what you think this would accomplice.

and ensure that everyone can find the platforms they want to post their speeches without having to worry about life or work

That's impossible. You could force internet platforms to host your ideas technically I guess, but you can't force people to not react to them.

[Kyundao]

Not only should Facebook and Twitter be punished for political censorship, they should also be punished for aiding and abetting criminal activity. Seriously, have you guys seen the kind of content posted on those platforms, especially Twitter? You have people advocating for assault and/or murder, you have people openly threatening others and entire communities, you have p-words - I won't say the actual word - saying disgusting and frankly illegal shit, etc. The fact that these platforms are protecting these law-breakers is a disgrace for a nation that values the rule of law.

I may be a free-market capitalist, but these platforms have too much power.

[Picairn]

Not only should Facebook and Twitter be punished for political censorship, they should also be punished for aiding and abetting criminal activity. Seriously, have you guys seen the kind of content posted on those platforms, especially Twitter? You have people advocating for assault and/or murder, you have people openly threatening others and entire communities, you have p-words - I'm not going to say the actual word - saying disgusting shit, etc. The fact that these platforms are protecting these law-breakers is a disgrace for a nation that values the rule of law.

I may be a free-market capitalist, but these platforms have too much power.

And what is your solution? Repealing Section 230 would cause a shutdown of Internet forums. Yes, even NS may be affected.

[Kyundao]

Not only should Facebook and Twitter be punished for political censorship, they should also be punished for aiding and abetting criminal activity. Seriously, have you guys seen the kind of content posted on those platforms, especially Twitter? You have people advocating for assault and/or murder, you have people openly threatening others and entire communities, you have p-words - I'm not going to say the actual word - saying disgusting shit, etc. The fact that these platforms are protecting these law-breakers is a disgrace for a nation that values the rule of law.

I may be a free-market capitalist, but these platforms have too much power.

And what is your solution? Repealing Section 230 would cause a shutdown of Internet forums. Yes, even NS may be affected.

We might as well add an amendment to Section 230 then by regulating how American tech companies operate. More specifically, force them to actually abide by US law and require them to allow federal law enforcement to monitor these platforms on a daily basis.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

(Image)

Lmfao that shit had me like