misinformation is a relative term. these companies will gladly platform any misinformation that aligns with the politics of the predominant corporate culture. they have rules of conduct, but they apply those rules selectively based on subjective interpretation of "misinformation"
-
-
Replying to @androth4 @cmuratori
I completely disagree, it's actually pretty easy to figure out what's true and what's not if you're prepared to do a few hours of reading (99.99% of Twitter are not) providing the information is available
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HjalmarAstrom @androth4
Unilateral policies are never enforced "fairly", so that assertion cannot be part of the discussion. If unilateral adjudication worked, countries wouldn't have a judicial branch, they'd just have an executive branch.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
In general, one _has to assume_ that giving a company the power to censor _necessarily assumes_ it will be unfair, because that is by definition what you have when you have no legal representation or access to an impartial judiciary.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @androth4
I was just disagreeing with the idea that misinformation is a relative term. As to your point, I think a reasonable regulation would be that companies have to publish their terms of service (Twitter doesn't for example, to my knowledge) and apply them consistently
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HjalmarAstrom @androth4
There is no such thing as "apply them consistently". Again, that is why we have a judicial branch. There will always be disagreements about what is a "consistent" application of a Terms of Service agreement.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @androth4
Right, but if they were legally required to do so then disagreements would be worked out by the legal system. This may be a terrible idea for reasons I've not thought of, but it's a compromise position which has occurred to me before.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HjalmarAstrom @androth4
You would still need to change the current regulations for that to occur, though. All Terms of Service contracts for social media companies currently include a number of "in [company]'s sole discretion", which means they would not be subject to trial court judgement.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So at a minimum you would be asking for a law that said social media companies "may not apply their own discretion" or something similar, which is quite similar to saying they no longer have the power to censor, etc.?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @androth4
Not exactly, they'd still have the right to censor - whether that be porn, gore, or vaccine conspiracies or something - but they wouldn't be able to pick and choose who they apply those rules to.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But what is a "vaccine conspiracy"? Someone has to _judge_ whether it is a conspiracy or not. So you still get into the problem of, "why did you say A was a conspiracy, but not B, when B seems equally improbable", etc.?
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @androth4
If a conspiracy theorist wanted to take a company to court for censoring them, then I imagine a court case would be capable of determining if they were spouting nonsense with no basis in evidence. However it probably wouldn't be great to clog up the system with that...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HjalmarAstrom @cmuratori
the point being made is that someone has to judge what these are. judge what is porn or art, what is gore or spilled food, what is conspiracy theory or actual conspiracy. and corporate judges don't judge fairly. their judgements are made according to corporate policy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.