Most people in the western world are more frequently harmed by words than by physical violence. Way more frequently.
You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life.
While I abhor physical violence, I do also realize some words are also a type of violence in and of themselves.
The examples you're listing aren't just words. They're actions.
I could say I'm going to deny your health insurance, or deny entry of your type to my group, or sue you for something. But notice how me saying any of these things don't actually have any immediate effect on you, because I don't control your health insurance or moderate a group you want to be in, or know who you are to sue you.
I can use words to convince people who do control those things to do things to you, but you can convince them not to, and convince others to do the same thing to me. The value of free speech is in replacing these conflicts that would otherwise be physical violence with words. Human nature didn't change. We still fight all the time, but with words.
They're words with consequences, backed by law and the freedom of companies doing all they're permitted to do; but fundamentally just words. Contracts are just words, but words with meaning and power, because we all agree to play by those rules.
>You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life.
None of these is "just words" lol. The words just convey something that will or won't be done. All of these examples are overly dramatic too. I too wish I lived in a world where nobody could tell me "no" but that'll never happen. If someone has lots of money and you don't, they probably won't sue you. Especially for a petty reason. There's not enough to gain from that.
>While I abhor physical violence, I do also realize some words are also a type of violence in and of themselves.
Violence is physical. People are only trying to claim a connection because they want to censor their enemies using one of the exceptions to free speech, which is when there is threat of imminent violence. As nasty or unpleasant as words may be, they bear no resemblence to actual violence. And no, you don't get to censor people because they say stuff that you feel bad about. The whole point of free speech is to allow the expression of unpopular and unpleasant words. Please get your language right and stop trying to gaslight the rest of us into a censorship program. Thank you for your attention to this matter lol
I think this might be a misinterpretation of the word "responsible".
If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible".
Government sets the rules, and if someone fail to comply, there are consequences against those responsible. Government isn't responsible, it is holding them responsible.
> If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible".
The platform isn't lying, any more than if I write "1 equals 2" on a letter and send it via the mail system to someone else is the mail system lying.
What if the platform decides that people will send more mail if they piss them off by copying your letter and sending it to everyone in their service area? Is that still just you lying? At what point does the platform become responsible for amplifying what you said? Are you responsible when it's amplified to everyone if all you ever intended was sending it out into the void?
Yes, the analogy to the postal service falls apart when discussing one-to-one correspondance. That's more like a DM than a social media.
If however some of your junk mail included mass mailings of brochures to join the KKK or some neo-nazi group, I could see why people would want the postal service to crack down on that. That is a fair analogy.
Social media platforms do not operate like the mail or telecommunication infrastructure. Suppose that a clique of high-follower verified users on X formed a private discord channel in which they coördinate false but plausible moral panic news events in order to foment spontaneous violent acts against minorities (for added effect, perhaps by pooling their resources into generative AI tools), and that both platforms refused to address this by shutting down the channel, banning the users, or even reducing their reach on the timeline. While there remain reasonable arguments against governing this bad behavior through legislation, it is plain that the social media platforms would be implicated in the negative outcomes of the behavior to a greater degree than a mail carrier.
A “ministry of truth” would (I assume) be a part of the executive branch of government.
Whereas the creation of laws and the interpretation of laws are powers that the executive branch does not have, and are held separately by the legislative and judicial branches.
In a, well, y’know “functioning” democracy. Apparently.
The US already has that. What do you think the courts do?
People complaining about building a "ministry of truth" in countries with anything resembling a functioning legal system are just as clueless as people who cry about "government death panels" while private insurance already denies people lifesaving medicine right freaking now
Judges. The question is mainly whether there should be some rules independent of those of the companies that the content must follow, and people who feel treated badly need to get their rights against those rules in a civil lawsuit, or whether more should be allowed first until there is a civil or penal lawsuit that might stop it. (It is already a mixture of both so it's a matter of degree.)
I personally prefer an emphasis on the first solution because it's better to combat the widespread lack of civility in social media, which I believe to harm society substantially, but I also understand the people who prefer the second model.
This is exactaly right. To silence even offensive ideas is to appoint someone as the final arbiter of truth — something history shows to be dangerous. Truth doesn’t need protection — it needs criticism. Censoring ‘offensive’ or ‘sacred’ ideas kills the very process (open debate) that lets society correct errors & find truth, even if it's uncomfortable. Everthing else is dogma.
In most common law countries, juries fill that roll.
Currently, in the US, internet companies get a special exemption from the laws that apply to other media companies via the DMCA. If traditional media companies publish libelous material, they get sued. Facebook and Google get a "Case Dismissed" pass. Most people look at the internet and conclude that hasn't worked out very well.
It's unclear to me what a good solution would look like. If platforms didn't have those protections, they probably wouldn't be able to exist at all. Any moderation would have to be perfect, or they would be open to lawsuits. And no platform could afford that. It's a tough one.
Are you implying that there’s no posts on social media platforms that are plain and verifiably wrong and that any such decision needs to be made by a government created ministry of truth? There’s no middle ground? Maybe such a thing like a court?
If I state here plain and as a fact that golieca eats little children for breakfast and slaughters kittens for fun, could @dang not look at both a statement from you and one from me and see if I have sufficient proof?
"If I state here plain and as a fact that golieca eats little children for breakfast and slaughters kittens for fun, could @dang not look at both a statement from you and one from me and see if I have sufficient proof?"
Nah, he would just (shadow)ban you.
But in general we had that debate long and broad on what truth means with Covid. Who decides what the scientific consensus is for instance. (I don't remember a crystal clear outcome, though). But in case of doubt, we still have courts to decide.
There’s a lot of grey areas - statement of fact vs opinion, open scientific consensus, statements about public figures vs. private individuals, … But the post I’m responding to basically says “there is no truth, let’s give up.” and that’s just as false.
Yeah, the US in particular functions on liability. If changes are made that make companies liable for the externalities from their platforms, they will almost instantly find ways to address the issues.
but if the platform didnt go verify all content placed by users on it, does it count as "spreading" it?
I mean, there's nothing stopping anyone from publishing a book which spreads lies and malicious content - book banning is looked down upon these days. Why are the publishers not asked to be held to this same level? What makes a web platform different?
I know it is hearsay, but it seems many times interviews try to get free work from candidates. Here, have a look at this real problem, see if you can solve it in whatever the interview time frame is.
When there are too many candidates and not so many jobs, and absolutely no regulation, employers are free to exploit applicants without consequences. Employers will do this even when there is no actual job being offered, so they can use the availability of applicants to apply downward pressure on the salaries of the workers they already have.
I have never seen this from either side. Think about it from the hiring side: how good of a solution could be produced by someone with zero context and experience in the business, domain and internal environment? This would be like less efficient "organic" vibe coding.
It is the usual complexity rule of software: solving 80% of the problem is usually pretty easy at only takes about 50% of the estimated effort, it is the remaining 20% that takes up the remaining 90% of estimated effort (thus the usual schedule overruns).
The interesting thing is that there are problems for which this rule applies recursively. Of the remaining 20%, most of it is easier than the remaining 20% of what is left.
Most software ships without dealing with that remaining 20%, and largely that is OK; it is not OK for safety critical systems though.
How on earth do you have any standing to make any pronouncement? "You've done your research"? You know better with your 5 minutes of googling than scientists that spent their careers studying these things?
Sigh ...
I despair for how stupid our discourse has become, and how loud and and proud are people's public displays of stupidity and ignorance.
In reality, it is not the DoD that contracts out the big stuff, but Congress. And when the purchaser isn't the actual user, then a whole bunch of nefarious negative feedback loops come into being. The Congresscritter mostly only cares about sounding good and their lobbying (bribery) dollars, everything else is a problem for someone else, or sometime later.
The tradeoff was that pedestrians were not considered and any pedestrian death was therefore considered an acceptable tradeoff to allow cars the least encumbrance.
I don't think they considered pedestrian deaths an acceptable trade-off. Probably the way it's framed is "if you don't cross at a crosswalk, your death is your own fault" or "if you let your kids go outside unattended, their deaths are your fault". Nevermind the total lack of crosswalks available. They see these things as examples of rule violations rather than a deficit of pedestrian infrastructure
It is true that it is not designed to have pedestrians killed; imo it is designed to not have pedestrians at all, and everybody having to have a car to move around. This pays for both the car and the fuel (industries).
At least this is my impression from ppl who have lived in the US and told me about how it is like in some places there, have never been myself.
The modern US is notoriously run for lawyers, by lawyers, and every facet of everything is contoured by what lawyers want. But does this lead to a viable country or is it a path to paralysis?
You're fired is just words, your health insurance is denied is just words, we don't accept your type here is words, you're being sued by someone with effectively infinite means is just words. But those words that will drastically change the course of your life.
While I abhor physical violence, I do also realize some words are also a type of violence in and of themselves.