[2112]

> Under current law, Big Tech platforms have the final word on their services. They have the right to decide which thinkers, politicians, and businesses are allowed onto their platform and which they will expel. This seems reasonable until you consider Big Tech’s scale and how fundamental the internet is to modern-day life.

I think that's the heart of the matter. I've thought about this quite a bit, but when we say break them down, how does that work ?

Could there be legal thresholds such as what already exists with regards to ( actual ) hate speech and encouraging violence, based on publicly agreed upon standards ?

Platforms being legally accountable for enforcing arbitrary or biased deplatforming or shadowbanning ? They are a special kind of service ...

I guess you'd need a watchdog with teeth. Does anyone have a link to something that covers all this in depth ? Could well be a HN thread ( maybe this one .. )

[ssivark]

A simple and more robust strategy is to force players to open up communication protocols, allowing end-users a variety of (federated) clients to communicate through. Users no more held hostage, that will encourage healthy market mechanisms in policy/curation decisions be it “disinformation” or whatever heuristic. And it would be great to have services with a variety of different policies so people can choose what they like and where to self-associate.

That way there’s no need for detailed and heavy-handed regulation, only an enforcement of a common protocol.

[COGlory]

Users are 100% of the power, and getting rid of network effects would reduce platform adoption to the quality of the platform..