I suggest watching the video, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QkC1aK7jfLo but the article has an OK summary.
Also a Mastodon shout-out in the video.
I suggest watching the video, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QkC1aK7jfLo but the article has an OK summary.
Also a Mastodon shout-out in the video.
As much as anyone may dislike it, it’s a form of private journalism, private opinion, and private art, and almost all the content itself is free speech. You have to regulate the medium as harmful, very specifically described functionality. What is not protected is stuff like infinite scrolling, but something like comments and voting are likely also protected as speech.
But without any of the liability hazard.
This is my issue: the big platforms having their cake and eating it. In one breath, they claim to be little open-platform garage startups that can’t possibly be responsible for the content of their users; they’re just a utility. They need protection from Congress. In another breath, they’re the stewards of generations and children, the only ones responsible enough to tame the internet’s criminality. All while making trillions.
They want to be “private content” protected from the government? Fine. Treat them like it, legally.
It’s difficult… We’re not very good at determining what is right and then enforcing it, so we have this weird hybrid system of semi-freedom with some exceptions, and sometimes the utility is responsible and sometimes the user and sometimes it’s free speech or protected art and sometimes it’s not protected speech and it’s not protected art.
Sometimes I think we should encode lessons we’ve learned as evil because they are clearly evil and bad for society, and to ban/prosecute them, but then I look at our world and you realize we can’t be trusted to encode the right things or properly follow through.