Calm down, pls. I disagree it is "dangerous" for some chump like myself to speculate on a basketball message board. And I never proposed outlawing the activity I was even worried about there. Your earlier point was probably the best: this is an "old person" issue. The relevant internet class is just laughing at us and not worrying about the occasional ban. Cheers.
gotcha keep in mind, building internet apps is my livelihood. This policing social media stuff is important to me, so I ask for your forgiveness of my passion. cheers
I actually did not know that -- cool. I am definitely ignorant but was enjoying the exchange here and enjoying thinking about it. I still like "my" idea that different rules apply as someone garners more attention real estate. Sort of like, in a utility, if you use more electricity or water, different rules kick in (usually). Cheers.
clarity to my position just came to me. imso, we/govt/etc should just Hold The Line on any new internet regulations for the benefit of the "relevant internet class" arising. No New Changes, until they are ready to vote, etc. Let's not make them inherent out-dated regulations that they have to dismantle, later.
So, gov impose limit to free speech of larger private companies, but not smaller private companies. What a mess to determine that arbitrary line. I suspect that if this is the case, there would be pressure on the gov to set a higher baseline on what's allowable. An internet equivalent to FCC broadcast indecency law.
For companies like Twitter and Facebook, their business is to use the public’s participation as a means to generate revenue. The public has a duty to think carefully about how that arrangement impacts all of us, and speak up to Twitter if there is harm being done. And Twitter, like any other business, should be receptive to that criticism. Note also that there are externalities here due to Twitter’s immense reach. It’s not just users who are impacted by their business. This is where comparisons to much smaller Internet forums like Clutchfans break down.
I would immediately say that you must be sure everyone is aware of TOS Tiers. And to point out, this likely causes added cost to the company to add layers of increasing scrutiny ... so certainly, No New Regulations to require it. consider this: it would be easy to code in a feature to throttle Followers or Views until the Influencer Opt-ins to more scrutiny, which could require a Premium Account to help pay for the extra policing, which essentially is just skimming revenue off their "channel" to help with costs. And they'd get premium support to help coach them if wanted also consider Neil Stephenson's world of a whole new service of editors and scrubbing for pay....have you read "Fall"?
where did I say Twitter shouldn't listen to reviews of their service? Where did I say anything about muzzling the whiner class? I really don't know the relevance to my comments of anything you just said. I have no idea what your point is in any of your posts, because you are describing what is already happening and allowed and maturing. You seem to be advocating some type of change, yet maybe you're just unaware of the current marketplace.
“it is very, very dangerous for us to throw out scenarios and feel like we have to have a public discussion over perfect solutions ... sigh I think ALL discussion from the public about policing social media is more dangerous than any problems we conceive and discusss and try to solve, because we're bored and want our opinions heard and to feel special that we played a role in shaping ('er, policing) social media networks.” Not sure what you mean by “dangerous”. Having no discussion is dangerous, for the reasons I gave.
It's funny because before social media was popular, online message boards and places like reddit had no major pushback for the concept of moderation. Like it was a concept that was well accepted by the internet community before big social media. The community accepted that a site has its mods and will ban at their own discretion. Now it's the number one policy fight the right wing cares about.
Since when does "free speech" mean "private companies have to publish anyone's speech with no rules or limitations"?
I have no problem with private entities censoring/policing/filtering what is available on their platform, or is that not what Fox News and every other media outlet has been doing for decades? Nobody has an undeniabe right to access Facebook or twitter. If you dont like them and.or they dont like you, find somewhere else to share your thoughts
Yes. The rationale they used in enforcing their criteria was speculative and contextual. Perhaps it can’t be any other way, and in this case I personally think Trump deserved to be booted off long ago. We should still be vigilant about how such wishy-washy enforcement can be abused under a different political climate and turned against people/movements who are trying advance causes we support.
Sure - you may not *agree* with their explanation, but it was very clear and transparent (which seemed to be what you were concerned about). They openly said they made the decision based on context and the potential for violence.
