Online platforms Laws & Regulations
-
I'm not sure whether this deserves it's own thread or not, but I can't quite find another thread that fits in with the topic of this post.
I've been way down on Rubin lately, because all of the talks are so self-congratulatory with lots of 'oh you're a member of the intellectual dark web'. They've been (IMO) really repetitive and fucking boring and you don't learn anything new.
But, this talk with Robert Barnes is really fascinating, mainly because he never stops talking, so Rubin can't jump in, but also because it talks about both sides of the free speech debate, including how free speech online can be subject to torts, plus how - in a related matter - tech companies could be subject to government regulation. Anyway, the first part is below, and I may post the second if I think it belongs here (Edit: Looks like I posted the full video):
Edit 2: To summarize - the basic argument here is that there are or could be substantial areas of online activity that could or should be subject to stricter interpretation. One particularly relevant point relates to the requirements of tech platforms to act as public spaces as they have, essentially, monopoly power which is granted under government supervision (i.e., they are registered companies), another is 'stalking' online, where Barnes argues that these instances are subject to regular laws around invasion of privacy. They also discuss the issue of anonymity - but this wasn't explored enough. Then, it goes on to specific examples - talking about Alex Jones and Covington.
Edit 3: He can't say Haka.
-
@Bones a tort is a harm that somebody does to you by some action they took that they are legally liable for. Infringed your rights, cost you money, that kind of thing. Someone not paying attention while they are driving and crashing into your fence? That’s a tort.
-
-
Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan and WaPo labels him far-right. What the actual f?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan and WaPo labels him far-right. What the actual f?
At least the hateful pricks is banned, I don't think many people take the post seriously anymore.
Next up Linda Sarsour.
-
@jegga said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan and WaPo labels him far-right. What the actual f?
At least the hateful pricks is banned, I don't think many people take the post seriously anymore.
Next up Linda Sarsour.
Not bloody likely.
Paul Joseph Watson banned too. Ive only seen his YouTube stuff but why has he been banned?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel they never cite the reasons or posts, as you know, and as would also be the first thing demanded and offered by any entities with integrity.
Personally I understand their "right" to ban anyone but the lack of transparency and consistency is entirely disturbing
Their power in society needs diluting
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Free Speech: Online platforms and Laws/Regulations:
Facebook bans Louis Farrakhan and WaPo labels him far-right. What the actual f?
Farrakhan appeared in a long feature interview with Alex Jones on Infowars two years ago. Interview was 3-4 hours.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Free Speech: Online platforms and Laws/Regulations:
Paul Joseph Watson banned too. Ive only seen his YouTube stuff but why has he been banned?
Has his own weekly radio show at Infowars, the longtime sorcerers’ apprentice to Alex Jones.
Look at the other voices being permanently banned by youtube — they’ve ALL at one time or another been regular guests on Alex Jones show.
Look at the 11th-hour SWAT team subpoenas the FBI was conducting with Mueller’s Special Investigation into Rooskiegate - - - Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi, who both not-so-coincidentally had their own regular programs on Infowars co-hosted with Alex Jones.
Look at how they’re now going to ban anybody that posts and/or share Infowars content.
Look at who Hillary singled-out in her infamous Alt-Right speech (“Pepe!) in the run-up to the 2016 election (that she lost)... the fatboy in Austin.
I dunno if it’s an algorythm or guilt-by-association spider... he’s their Gold Standard.
And I don’t want to stoke or peddle paranoid conspiracy theories, but there is a discernible pattern...
They’ll be coming after Joe Rogan next.
-
@Bones said in Free Speech: Online platforms and Laws/Regulations:
What's a "tort"?
When a South African asks you round for apple tart.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Free Speech: Online platforms and Laws/Regulations:
@Bones said in Free Speech: Online platforms and Laws/Regulations:
What's a "tort"?
When a South African asks you round for apple tart.
Thought there was a Essex girl joke in there somewhere.
-
In preparation for 2020 social media networks have been going nuts removing conservative voices. Surely this has to result in regulation but is it too late now? Are these networks 'platform's or 'publishers'? Trump Jr has tweeted about it will Trump Sr respond in a meaningful way?
There is something very uneasy about a rule where you can share content of a particular person but only if you condemn it.
-
Is this something you want Lizzie Marvelly having a say in?
-
@jegga what is completely missing from this whole thing is Islamic extremism, which is a far bigger problem than white nationalist extremism. As I've pointed out before, the whole sharing terrorist attacks on social media is nothing new given Islamic terrorists have been doing it for years - Adern saying this was "unprecedented" is complete bullshit and points to this being more politically motivated than anything else.
Also, no, given Marvelly would see someone like Jordan Peterson as a "white nationalist" that is "red-pilling" people she should not be within 1000 miles of this conversation.
The one thing I will concede is the algorithms can send people down rabbit holes, including pro-disease rabbit holes which are a concern. But that's not what this seeks to address.
-
@No-Quarter there’s a moral panic about white nationalism and hate speech these people are using to give the government extra powers . Outside of Tarrants atrocity I’m yet to see any evidence that there’s actually any real issue.
I wonder if we’ll end up with two parallel internets? One with people hidden by vpns on closed forums or the dark web and another with Facebook and twitter with people talking in approved speech occasionally turning on one of their own who mistakenly expresses a nuanced opinion?
-
@jegga said in Free Speech: Online platforms and Laws/Regulations:
@No-Quarter there’s a moral panic about white nationalism and hate speech these people are using to give the government extra powers . Outside of Tarrants atrocity I’m yet to see any evidence that there’s actually any real issue.
I wonder if we’ll end up with two parallel internets? One with people hidden by vpns on closed forums or the dark web and another with Facebook and twitter with people talking in approved speech occasionally turning on one of their own who mistakenly expresses a nuanced opinion?
Precisely. I keep seeing things like "the spread of online extremism is a threat to our democracy, so let's put more regulations in place". More regulations is a far bigger threat to our democracy than idiotic white nationalists talking shit on social media.
I'm amazed more people don't see the danger with giving governments more and more power. A good way to look at it is: think of your absolute worst political opponent, and then consider them having the power to regulate things like free speech online. If that makes you uncomfortable, then it's a bad idea.
-
@No-Quarter said in Free Speech: Online platforms and Laws/Regulations:
I'm amazed more people don't see the danger with giving governments more and more power
I'm sure the Government will use the centralised power wisely...
It's also worth noting that the companies themselves want to be regulated. The regulation creates barriers to entry which basically ends the chances of a new player coming on the scene and disrupting the current market
When it comes time to create the regulation the companies will point out how complicated the market is and how we need experts to write the rules. Who has the experts? Well google/facebook etc
This 'regulatory capture' has happened in multiple industries before -
This is just chilling
Ardern has repeatedly said the call is being held against the "Christchurch test" - i.e. would the action have helped stop what happened in the attack?
I dunno Cindy..you made it illegal to know or discuss the killers written motives, you've given your own motives which the world is supposed to just believe..never mind the fact that you seem to be perversely following this terrorists written plans.
christchurch-call-what-to-expect-as-jacinda-ardern-finalises-her-tech-pledge-in-paris
News from WaPo: Facebook has banned "far-right" Louis Farrakhan
