Who dares to question the great and powerful OZ?

[Visian]

"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/

You don't seem to understand, your speech won't be eliminated, it will be downvoted or upvoted. Further, this judgement will be ranked. Market sentiment is the final arbiter, unless guns are involved...

Here is an example: Mattr - a company in business to restore digital trust. (This used to be a division of Apple involving networking in the long lost past... they were spun off and actually used to moderate WalMart's social presence at one point... now they're developing tools for what I am talking about.)

What if you could buy a service that curated your social feeds? What if you could get a job providing a moderation service and your pay was determined by how people judged your lack of bias?

 

[gregfeeler]

You don't seem to understand, your speech won't be eliminated, it will be downvoted or upvoted. Then, this judgement will be ranked. Market sentiment is the final arbiter, unless guns are involved

Ian, I do understand. This is a plan in which people not accountable to me will hire others based on "qualifications" I have no part in establishing to pass judgement on my speech by a criteria I have no control over. Even protests of their judgements are subject to them alone and no others. And, the Market sentiment is determined how? And this process could keep up with the posts of the 2.4 billion FaceBook users? I would bet a small fortune that if such a group (process?) were tasked with reviewing the First Amendment stated in today's vernacular it would downvote it. After all, it is a very radical and dangerous concept. Look how few friends it has here.

 

[gregfeeler]

I think I've stated my points in this thread. I do not have an answer to this situation. But, I do have a sense that so far no one else does that I would find acceptable, judging by the suggestions I hear proposed from all corners. When there are no clear answers, remember how easy it is to implement a "solution" which is far worse then the original problem. What we do in the so-called free world, and especially in the United States, when it comes to any hint of censorship will be pounced upon by every large and small totalitarian regime in the world as justification for their suppression of free expression. The whole world is watching. The whole world is watching... This time, they really are.

 

[Visian]

And, the Market sentiment is determined how?

My favorite saying: Money talks and bull**** walks.

 

[Visian]

I do not have an answer to this situation.

Neither do I, all I am saying is what I see are the trends. Can't really judge whether they're right or wrong.

Two other related examples.

AllSides.com

and...

ETFs, which you can buy according to your preferences: climate-related, social responsibility related, women's rights related... an endless number of ways to put your money where your wishes are.

Who knows what the killer app will be this time?

 

[akbeemer]

If the protections afforded Facebook and other SM platforms by Section 230 of the CDA are abrogated, as has been proposed in congress, then the courts will eventually determine the rules that Zuckerberg and others will have to play by. To what degree will the operators of SM platforms be liable for what is shown on their platform? Facebook will of course be a huge target. Does the government extend the CDA rules that apply to broadcast platforms to SM platforms? Will motorcycle forums be treated as SM platforms? Might make it difficult to get members to volunteer to be moderators.

 

[gregfeeler]

Neither do I, all I am saying is what I see are the trends. Can't really judge whether they're right or wrong.

Two other related examples.

AllSides.com

and...

ETFs, which you can buy according to your preferences: climate-related, social responsibility related, women's rights related... an endless number of ways to put your money where your wishes are.

Who knows what the killer app will be this time?

We share this perspective. I do know this - the divisiveness in our country - and many of the world's countries - today is a very, very bad thing. The first act of war before the shooting starts is to dehumanize your "enemy". Then whatever you do isn't constrained by any moral limitations of what you would or wouldn't do to a fellow human being. The 20th century was almost dedicated to proving that proposition.

 

[gregfeeler]

If the protections afforded Facebook and other SM platforms by Section 230 of the CDA are abrogated, as has been proposed in congress, then the courts will eventually determine the rules that Zuckerberg and others will have to play by. To what degree will the operators of SM platforms be liable for what is shown on their platform? Facebook will of course be a huge target. Does the government extend the CDA rules that apply to broadcast platforms to SM platforms? Will motorcycle forums be treated as SM platforms? Might make it difficult to get members to volunteer to be moderators.

All logical and true. The law of unintended consequences is self-enforcing.

 

[52184]

If the protections afforded Facebook and other SM platforms by Section 230 of the CDA are abrogated, as has been proposed in congress, then the courts will eventually determine the rules that Zuckerberg and others will have to play by. To what degree will the operators of SM platforms be liable for what is shown on their platform? Facebook will of course be a huge target. Does the government extend the CDA rules that apply to broadcast platforms to SM platforms? Will motorcycle forums be treated as SM platforms? Might make it difficult to get members to volunteer to be moderators.

Removal of 230 protections will only muddy the water unless accompanied by a return of the “Fairness Doctrine” the FCC implemented in 1949 and aborted in 1987. Removal of that doctrine was a huge contributing factor to the rise of talk radio and its lack of accountability for the accuracy of the material being broadcast, which spilled into SM when it became prominent. The doctrine required an accounting and reporting of broadcasting re each side/faction/branch of debate and allowed broadcast recipients to file complaints with the FCC over unbalanced broadcast. That mix of accountability and reporting to government, and provision for public monitoring and reporting, worked well for many years; it’s demise was not accidental, incidental, or unplanned.
Best,
DeVern

 

[gregfeeler]

Removal of 230 protections will only muddy the water unless accompanied by a return of the “Fairness Doctrine” the FCC implemented in 1949 and aborted in 1987. Removal of that doctrine was a huge contributing factor to the rise of talk radio and its lack of accountability for the accuracy of the material being broadcast, which spilled into SM when it became prominent. The doctrine required an accounting and reporting of broadcasting re each side/faction/branch of debate and allowed broadcast recipients to file complaints with the FCC over unbalanced broadcast. That mix of accountability and reporting to government, and provision for public monitoring and reporting, worked well for many years; it’s demise was not accidental, incidental, or unplanned.
Best,
DeVern

I don't think it would be possible to apply the Fairness Doctrine to a Social Media site - at least not very easy. Radio stations and newspapers select their content, so can select a "fair" balance. SM sites only host the content of others. Just imagine if this forum had to have balanced content for the petroleum vs. synthetic oil dispute? Silly example, but I think makes the point.

 

[rick601]

I don't think it would be possible to apply the Fairness Doctrine to a Social Media site - at least not very easy. Radio stations and newspapers select their content, so can select a "fair" balance. SM sites only host the content of others. Just imagine if this forum had to have balanced content for the petroleum vs. synthetic oil dispute? Silly example, but I think makes the point.

The "fairness" doctrine is a joke even in it's original execution- also imagines there are only "two sides". More to the point here is your observation that SM sites only host the content of their users- were that so, they shouldn't be liable for acts of others- only the [not-so-deep-pockets] others would be liable. BUT once a monopolistic platform starts censoring, THEN I'd contend they have accepted a responsibility that could make them liable. That's why their interference in content is a slippery slope that could work against them (I hope). They have taken upon themselves to silence a multitude of voices. I only see the "moderation" proposed-private or governmental- here as an extension of that, to the point where we have politicized arbiters (of whatever stripe) setting ground rules for discussions of race, climate, medicine, sexuality, good (and bad) governance, proper language, admissible evidence etc etc etc. PERHAPS, MAYBE a proper "moderation" would relate to anonymity, source of comment (bot? human? foreign government? Scam? Actual illegal sexual activity (yeah- I'd allow someone to talk about even promote aberrant sexual proclivities- but not, for example, lure kids- the posters would be so roundly abused-virtually-that it would hurt.) A forum like this one would still have their rules- as any small business- but the virtual monopolies (Amazon, FB etc.) are platforms too big to exercise the power they now do. Those guys are hosts...the guests set their rules.

 

[Visian]

Relax…

George Soros will fix it: https://goodinfo.us/

 

[gregfeeler]

George Soros will fix it: https://goodinfo.us/

"The belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it, seems to me the deepest root of all that is evil in the world."
- Max Born

 

[mikegalbicka]

"The belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it, seems to me the deepest root of all that is evil in the world."
- Max Born

"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Visian]

"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

In the final moments before the crash, the pilot yells "hissatsu" (必殺) at the top of their lungs, which translates to "certain kill" or "sink without fail".

Kamikazes

 

[mikegalbicka]

In the final moments before the crash, the pilot yells "hissatsu" (必殺) at the top of their lungs, which translates to "certain kill" or "sink without fail".

Kamikazes

The last time that was experienced in mass I believe in the end right, which may have been temporarily defeated, was stronger than that evil act and prevailed.

 

[gregfeeler]

The last time that was experienced in mass I believe in the end right, which may have been temporarily defeated, was stronger than that evil act and prevailed.

True. But, the right prevailed because of superior fire power - not good thoughts.

 

[mikegalbicka]

True. But, the right prevailed because of superior fire power - not good thoughts.

The military conquest sure, but not that for heart and soul.

 

[gregfeeler]

The military conquest sure, but not that for heart and soul.

You have to eliminate the power of evil before you can have access to the good people's hearts.

 

[mikegalbicka]

You have to eliminate the power of evil before you can have access to the good people's hearts.

I respectfully disagree but won't belabor the point here. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss this more.