Technology

59656 readers

3044 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

276

It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media (theconversation.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

98 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is an argument for a publicly-funded “digital public square”, not an argument for stripping private companies of their rights.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why not both?

While I agree that punishing companies for success isn't a good idea, we aren't talking about small startups or local business ran by individual entrepreneurs or members of the community here. We're talking about absurdly huge corporations with reach and influence the likes that few businesses ever reach. I don't think it's unreasonable to apply a different set of rules to them, as they are distinctly different situations.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because one is violating the first amendment rights of a private company, the other isn’t. Punishing a private company for how an individual uses their platform isn’t constitutional. It would be like holding car manufacturers liable for drunk drivers.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

I fully agree. Small groups have limited resources. But google and facebook have a ton of resources, they can handle more oversight.

[+] Blamemeta@lemm.ee -8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a good idea, but I still think big sites are public spaces at this point.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

“Publicly-accessible private space” and “public space” are two legally-distinct things. In a public town square, you have first amendment rights. In a shopping mall*, your speech and behavior are restricted. This is similar in that regard. Both are publicly-accessible, but one is private property and can be subject to the rules of the property owner.

Edit: *not applicable to certain behaviors or speech in Californian malls

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To your shopping mall example, you got it wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You should read the link you posted:

This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech.

So my analogy wouldn’t apply to Californian shopping malls, but it would to others, and it would apply federally.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago

Well damn, I got hasty.

I still think it really should apply federally, but it doesn't.