|
|
|
|
|
|
by whimsicalism
2073 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not a republican, nor a Trump supporter, but I disagree. I think the courts would be able to create a body of case law over whether a removal was due to a post being "violent, obscene or harassing" or for some other reason. We can't be terrified of regulating platforms that have massive amounts of control over what most people see or hear about. |
|
|
1. Maybe, but that's not what Hawley's bill does.
2. Leaving inherently political questions up to the courts invites politicizing the courts -- something that's already happened and that, if it continues apace, threatens to delegitimize and gridlock the entire federal legal system.
3. Given that you're not a Trump supporter or Republican, perhaps you should review the last 20 years of federal judicial appointments before placing so much faith in the courts...
> We can't be terrified of regulating platforms that have massive amounts of control over what most people see or hear about.
Agreed. I think there are lots of reasonable approaches toward regulation and/or self-regulation. The ability of customers to choose from a marketplace of recommendation algos (or implement their own) is the obvious market-based solution.
However, I do not think a politically appointed committee whose job is to define political neutrality is a reasonable approach. And I think that leaving inherently political moderation choices up to the courts would be even worse -- at least FTC chairs aren't lifetime appointments, and at least politicizing the FTC won't deteriorate public trust in the one portion of the federal government that is not yet perceived as nakedly partisan.