Technology

60021 readers

3299 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 2 years 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 to c/technology

99 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

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 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