1. There isn't proof they meddle in our elections. Please don't point to that study where his sample size wasn't statistically significant 2. There is no legal difference between a publisher and a platform. Rule 230 applies to any site with UGChttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190613/03172142391/once-more-with-feeling-there-is-no-legal-distinction-between-platform-publisher.shtml …
2) i think about stuff like if a hypnotist made me walk off a cliff are they charged with murder. If the kind of manipulation we are discussing could be shown as being exact enough to predictively deliver outcomes, in an election say, it's a kind of override of choice/free will.
-
-
3) so I am thinking that certain practices in curating content/juking algorithms that have too high of predictable manipulation is wrong/should be illegal, just like subliminal messages in advertisements is.
-
1/ yeah, it's a tough issue. not even breaking them up would really solve the core problem. as of now there isn't proof that they are actively trying to manipulate any election and Congress is pretty shitty about understanding tech in general.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.