Who dares to question the great and powerful OZ?

[rick601]

Facebook is a prime example of what can happen without meaningful government oversight, yet some believe there is already too much govt. oversight.

E.

Indeed. They want to abrogate responsibility for what's posted because they are merely a platform, and then they censor speech they deem inappropriate. Can't have it both ways. I believe there is something in the big techs' attitude and behaviour that is wrong and that Libs and Cons (Reps and Dems too) may find common ground in rectifying- or trying to rectify. Lack of civility is the least of those platforms problems.

 

[gregfeeler]

Indeed. They want to abrogate responsibility for what's posted because they are merely a platform, and then they censor speech they deem inappropriate. Can't have it both ways. I believe there is something in the big techs' attitude and behaviour that is wrong and that Libs and Cons (Reps and Dems too) may find common ground in rectifying- or trying to rectify. Lack of civility is the least of those platforms problems.

I think it is the government and much of the public at large who are wanting it both ways. On the one hand you buy stock in Facebook to make money and on the other you expect that they should display some amount of so-called "social responsibility" that will reduce their profit. How soon we forget the simple single purpose of a business enterprise in a free market economy: make all the profit possible within the law. Period. Hard stop. For a management team of any publicly traded corporation to voluntarily pull their competitive punches for "social responsibility" or other reasons not required by law is to steal from the shareholders, and to disadvantage that company in the face of it's competitors, which diminishes the value of the shareholder's equity. This is simple mandate is how a free economy must be, and the less government regulation the better for maximum economic efficiency.

However, "less" is not "none", are there are places for some governmental regulation. IF society believes that some or all businesses should be required to do something, or not do something, not currently required by law or their customers, then it not just the right of the government to enact such legislation, but it is the government's duty. Only by government action can private enterprise be fairly and equally burdened by societal goals. Examples: child labor laws, pollution control laws, safe food and drug laws, etc. These laws express the will of the people and provide a fair and level playing field because all businesses are equally burdened. This is what Mark Zuckerberg is talking about when he asks for government action. It's not his job, or any other business leader's job to define "social responsibility" - it's our job through our elected representatives.

 

[pglaves]

It is actually a governmental intervention that allows social media platforms to be as detrimental as they are. The government shields them from liability since they are just "platforms" not responsible for what is posted. But they allow pseudonyms and VPNs and whatever else tech allows posters to remain anonymous and generally untouchable. If instead of shielding Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and 8Chan and 4Chan and whatever else is hiding on the dark web from any liability for their content, they were no longer shielded, things would change almost instantly.

As soon as all of those "moderators" (human or otherwise) were aimed at limiting liability in the same manner as applies to radio, TV, newspapers, and other broadcasters, the situation would change rather quickly. Absent the government protections afforded social media companies, their behavior would improve immeasurably.

 

[pglaves]

This is what Mark Zuckerberg is talking about when he asks for government action. It's not his job, or any other business leader's job to define "social responsibility" - it's our job through our elected representatives.

What the business school dogma fails to address in most people's minds is the time frame for the theoretical duty to maximize value for the shareholders. Warren Buffett believes it is a long range duty - ten to twenty years - while many CEOs think in 90 day time frames because among other reasons their bonuses depend on quarterly results.

Failure to exhibit some measure of social responsibility may well back fire on Zuckerberg if the government decides to remove the liability shield it constructed just for him and his compatriots. The value of the social media platforms will decline absent the government's protection, and the "duty" to the share holders will be breached due to the lack of foresight.

 

[gregfeeler]

It is actually a governmental intervention that allows social media platforms to be as detrimental as they are. The government shields them from liability since they are just "platforms" not responsible for what is posted. But they allow pseudonyms and VPNs and whatever else tech allows posters to remain anonymous and generally untouchable. If instead of shielding Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and 8Chan and 4Chan and whatever else is hiding on the dark web from any liability for their content, they were no longer shielded, things would change almost instantly.

As soon as all of those "moderators" (human or otherwise) were aimed at limiting liability in the same manner as applies to radio, TV, newspapers, and other broadcasters, the situation would change rather quickly. Absent the government protections afforded social media companies, their behavior would improve immeasurably.

I have to almost completely disagree with you, Paul. Social media and newspapers are nothing alike. A newspaper is a business which publishes what it selects for you to see. All the content is the responsibility of the publisher, event the choice of what "Letters to the Editor" to publish. Social media is a platform which only provides a space for you, me, and that guy over there to express our thoughts. The users provide the content. There are many either actual, assumed, or implied elements of "free speech" tangled up in our current use of social medial platforms.

 

[gregfeeler]

What the business school dogma fails to address in most people's minds is the time frame for the theoretical duty to maximize value for the shareholders. Warren Buffett believes it is a long range duty - ten to twenty years - while many CEOs think in 90 day time frames because among other reasons their bonuses depend on quarterly results.

Failure to exhibit some measure of social responsibility may well back fire on Zuckerberg if the government decides to remove the liability shield it constructed just for him and his compatriots. The value of the social media platforms will decline absent the government's protection, and the "duty" to the share holders will be breached due to the lack of foresight.

Ok, you are now in charge of Facebook. Could you describe these actions you will take? What will your "social responsibility" look like? Or is "social responsibility" some thing like pornography in that we can't define it but know it when we see it?

 

[pglaves]

I have to almost completely disagree with you, Paul. Social media and newspapers are nothing alike. A newspaper is a business which publishes what it selects for you to see. All the content is the responsibility of the publisher, event the choice of what "Letters to the Editor" to publish. Social media is a platform which only provides a space for you, me, and that guy over there to express our thoughts. The users provide the content. There are many either actual, assumed, or implied elements of "free speech" tangled up in our current use of social medial platforms.

Stay tuned Greg, and keep your ear to the ground around Washington D.C. There is considerable sentiment to remove the liability shield.

 

[Visian]

Social media is a platform which only provides a space for you, me, and that guy over there to express our thoughts. The users provide the content. There are many either actual, assumed, or implied elements of "free speech" tangled up in our current use of social medial platforms.

Is corporate speech "the other guy?"

What about algorithmically-"edited/delivered" content?

There is a completely new class of communication that's emerged in social media and my guess is that the market will ultimately decide the way forward. Just like UseGroups were replaced by e-mail list servers, which were replaced by forums, which were replaced by MySpace, which was replaced by Facebook, Twitter, Parler, MeWe......

People are finally learning how to adjust the settings in social media to their liking (and shield themselves from the BS). Learning how to properly use this sh*t really is our personal responsibility.

But then, personal responsibility is out of fashion these days

 

[Visian]

Ok, you are now in charge of Facebook. Could you describe these actions you will take? What will your "social responsibility" look like? Or is "social responsibility" some thing like pornography in that we can't define it but know it when we see it?

I think a possible way forward is community moderation on a mass scale performed by independent contractors who are compensated for their work. This is kind of a hybrid idea between what's happening now with agencies who moderate content for corporate clients, and BigTech-employees who moderate "public square" communication.

 

[gregfeeler]

Stay tuned Greg, and keep your ear to the ground around Washington D.C. There is considerable sentiment to remove the liability shield.

If so, it wouldn't be the first time that our elected representatives punted on their responsibilities.

There is no way to enact any kind of "socially responsible" social media without it being some form of censorship or thought police. Where do we start and where do we end? Who defines what it truth? Who defines "truth" vs. "belief" (science vs. religion)? Is one more valid thatn the other? You could fill a very large book of historical examples where some radical, madman, or heretic made claims that were seen as false, heretical, or dangerous to the social order. Some were burned for their claims, but from Copernicus claiming the Earth rotated around the Sun, to Martin Luther, to Albert Einstein profits of the new truth have been denied.

Arthur Schopenhauer said, "All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident. And here we are talking about suppressing other's ideas at the ridicule stage. What we are facing is what some people believe is the downside to actually allowing true free speech. Mind you, I'm not taking sides if this is "good" or "bad" (and that statement requires we ask good or bad for whom?). In Communist China the "truth" often looks a lot different than it does in the western world. I say this, only when you can define these things is it fair to throw then a private business to implement.

 

[gregfeeler]

I think a possible way forward is community moderation on a mass scale performed by independent contractors who are compensated for their work. This is kind of a hybrid idea between what's happening now with agencies who moderate content for corporate clients, and BigTech-employees who moderate "public square" communication.

With all respect, Ian, this sounds like a most terrible idea. A perfect plan to reduce the discussion of ideas to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Omega Man]

My take is that these Social Media platforms are bases on getting as many people involved as possible. Those involved get there friends involved with “friending” and “likes”. As all this is interconnected through the SM platform, as those involved are the sales leads, limiting involvement to anyone using the SM platform goes against its main objective which is expanding customer (sales lead) base.
It is ripe for abuse due to its unmanageable size. The SM groups should be easier to manage if there is a commitment to do so. Allowing one group to shut down another group should be see by the participants for what it is….allowing participants to vote with their keyboards as to whether to stay with the SM group.
If you have lost a pet, a local SM group is a wonderful asset in helping find the pet. As it expands from there, it is good to remember that you are the product that keeps the “free” SM platform up and running.
Try to be as careful as you can.
OM

 

[Visian]

In Communist China the "truth" often looks a lot different than it does in the western world.

Communist China is implementing a social credit system. We are, too, in a BigTech/BigMedia/BigBrother sort of way.

 

[Visian]

With all respect, Ian, this sounds like a most terrible idea. A perfect plan to reduce the discussion of ideas to the lowest common denominator.

Yeah, like E Pluribus Unum.

Remember, everything in social media can have scores. iow, reviews of the reviewers

 

[gregfeeler]

Is corporate speech "the other guy?"

What about algorithmically-"edited/delivered" content?

There is a completely new class of communication that's emerged in social media and my guess is that the market will ultimately decide the way forward. Just like UseGroups were replaced by e-mail list servers, which were replaced by forums, which were replaced by MySpace, which was replaced by Facebook, Twitter, Parler, MeWe......

People are finally learning how to adjust the settings in social media to their liking (and shield themselves from the BS). Learning how to properly use this sh*t really is our personal responsibility.

But then, personal responsibility is out of fashion these days

"But then, personal responsibility is out of fashion these days." Amen.

 

[gregfeeler]

Yeah, like E Pluribus Unum.

Note that the actual people who came up with E Pluribus Unum (Adams, Franklin, etc.) didn't incorporate it into the First Amendment.

 

[Visian]

Note that the actual people who came up with E Pluribus Unum (Adams, Franklin, etc.) didn't incorporate it into the First Amendment.

It's a strategy, not a tactical plan.

 

[gregfeeler]

It's a strategy, not a tactical plan.

That's exactly correct. We hold together for the strength in numbers for the expressed purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of each of us individually. I don't see community moderation of one person's ideas as a good fit.

 

[Visian]

I don't see community moderation of one person's ideas as a good fit.

You forgot the compensated part. People do this as their jobs, and their job performance is scored to keep them honest. You buy product on-line in exactly this same way. (Of course, it still takes a little skill to sniff out the obvious fake reviewers... but I trust peoples' sense of smell, especially at scale.)

Bet that's the next thing.

 

[gregfeeler]

You forgot the compensated part. People do this as their jobs, and their job performance is scored to keep them honest. You buy product on-line in exactly this same way. (Of course, it still takes a little skill to sniff out the obvious fake reviewers... but I trust peoples' sense of smell, especially at scale.)

Bet that's the next thing.

"People do this as their jobs, and their job performance is scored to keep them honest." Look, Ian, if you are going to promote paying others to pass judgement on my speech, I suggest we do a proof of concept test. Establish such a group to be the Fashion Police for Walmart. No one can enter unless their dress passes the review of the Fashion Police. Once I see them actually get a handle on that situation, then we can talk.

https://www.peopleofwalmart.com/