The biggest problem/threat for free, uncensored social media (and the internet in general) will always be clear and blatant violations of the law, such as people posting CP. Currently big tech is allowed to judge these posts on their own as inappropriate and remove them. But we want to stop this behavior, where social media judges the content of our posts. So what can we do to have our cake and also get rid of CP?

In the past, I have proposed that social media should remove posts containing harassment, threats of violence etc. only if the person reporting them had proof from a court of law that declared said post as illegal. Or at the very least the one reporting should present evidence that they also have reported it to the police.

But this wouldn't work well enough when it comes to CP and potentially other crimes. My suggestion is, for a very narrow number of crimes, allow the platform itself to report the potential criminal posts/accounts to the relevant authorities, and only afterwards hide said posts or suspend the account, with permanent deletion taking place only after the person is found guilty.

@alyx The problem is the platform will go down as well. No law enforcement agency would forgo the chance at the host as well as the violator.

A bigger bust means bigger news stories and better funding. I think in the model you describe the host will always be charged along with the offending user and will likely have worse charges due to the laws about moving that nasty shit over state lines.

It's a one way ticket to Marion USP for the host while the violator will likely get a slap on the wrist.

@MisterRogersSnapped
If that were the case Twitter would have disappeared a long time ago. As long as there's some form of 230, it won't happen.

@alyx they delete posts that violate the law if they are reported (or at least that is their publicly stated policy).

I am thinking more about smaller platforms that can't afford the type of moderation twitter can. The part I think will get the platform in trouble is leaving the post up after they know about it. It seems like they are making the choice to host it and I think that will bite them in the ass.

I could be wrong.
Follow

@MisterRogersSnapped
I think you are missing the point of my posts. What I'm trying to lay out is basically how a proper 230 law should work. What I'm saying is, by law, these should be the only criteria by which social media is allowed to remove posts from public access.

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Game Liberty Mastodon

Mainly gaming/nerd instance for people who value free speech. Everyone is welcome.