[silentsea90]

It is a hard problem.

The Govt pontificates about big tech issues without putting in the effort of making laws. Big tech is forced to anticipate what might defame them or be used by the Govt as ammo to garner public sympathy. It is a delicate balancing act between censorship and freedom.

Zuck tried to put the onus on the Govt to define right and wrong, true and false, but to no avail. It is hard to please everybody unfortunately.

[3np]

I really don’t see the hard part. Just because we consider something to be harmful and negative (like propaganda) doesn’t mean making it illegal is desirable.

Even for the things that are illegal, it can be illegal to publish something but legal to provide connectivity services to the offender.

Net neutrality is not a delicate balance.

Or what’s a tricky edge case you have in mind?

[silentsea90]

I apologize if I missed your point, but in the case of fake news for instance, iiuc, you're arguing that fake news on FB is legal and that FB isn't responsible for such content on their platform.

Information warfare is fairly real and potent in how it has weakened US democracy and vaccination efforts recently. Ultimately, arguably, this has real consequences for the economy, national security etc.

[3np]

I am not saying that FB is not responsible. I am saying that FB should not have their services blocked by ISPs or government because of fake news on their platform.

You're correct in your observation but state-sanctioned censorship is not the solution.

In case we're talking around each other; what kind of laws would you like to see put in place?

[silentsea90]

Agree with the idea.

I don't have strong opinions on solutions here, and don't mind the status quo.