[jiofj]

>How closely the state should be involved in the moderation practices of private platforms is certainly a matter of some dispute and delicacy. Too far in one direction results in censorship like China’s, while a totally hands-off approach results in rampant abuse, as we’ve seen in the past.

Citation needed, I guess?

[midasuni]

Usenet for example, completely unusable as we ended the 90s as the noise:signal ratio collapsed.

[jiofj]

The text I quoted does not say that social networks need moderation, it says that social networks need state-mandated moderation.

[Pyramus]

So you agree that social networks need moderation, but you disagree that there should be a law that says social networks need moderation?

[jiofj]

Of course.

I've seen this argument so many times. I like something, so we have to make a law to force it to exist. Or, I don't like something, so we have to make a law to make it illegal.

Unless there is a monopoly, and social networks certainly aren't one, there's no reason to force them to do anything.

[Pyramus]

> there's no reason to force them to do anything.

So why are we forcing social networks to do a lot of things already today: We force them to remove illegal content, remove content that is not suited for minors, moderate content that is traumatic, protect people's privacy etc?

I don't really understand? Is your point that we should not be doing this as well? Is your fear that the state of California will moderate Twitter?

[jiofj]

This is starting to sound like concern trolling to me.

[keiferski]

Not the person you’re replying to, but: Is this supposed to be some kind of contradiction? There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.

[Pyramus]

No, I'm trying to understand what OP's position is?

> There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.

Can you give some examples? I can't think of a single social network that is not moderated, even 4Chan is to some extent. Maybe on the darknet? But even then moderation exists I assume.

So it seems clear to me that there should be some minimum standard in moderation, which should be enforceable.

It's kind of ironic that we discuss this on a heavily moderated platform, which is both moderated by a centralised authority as well as the users themselves.

[jiofj]

Read the original quote from the article. It does not say that the state should say that there should be some moderation, it says that the state should say how platforms are moderated. "how closely the state should be involved in the moderation practices of private platforms"

Also, again and again: the fact that all platforms you know are moderated does not mean that this should happen by law.

[jdenning]

When a site sets their own standards of moderation, users have a choice to use or not use the site based on those standards. When the state sets the standard, then users are not able to choose the site that has the appropriate amount/type of moderation.

Clearly, there are people who want to use sites with minimal moderation, eg 4chan.

I don’t want to use 4chan myself, because of its lack of moderation, but why should I care if others do want to use 4chan?

I think OP’s point is pretty clear - just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

[keiferski]

I don’t understand what is so complicated about this. The legal system is not the solution to every problem. Moderation is not the same as passing laws.

[redox99]

Yes

[PicassoCTs]

Well, the state is just the moderation-team the people voted for in a democracy?

[twoodfin]

Not when it comes to speech in the United States, thank goodness.

[midasuni]

Tried threatening the President recently? Or making art of counterfeit currency? Or encouraging someone to commit suicide? Or print some child pornographers? Or put up some normal pornography on your property?

The US is full of restrictions on speech and has been for its entire existence.

[twoodfin]

Of course: The limits of those restrictions aren’t set by a democratic process, either.

[hef19898]

4Chan as well. Or, as Musk shows everyday, Twitter.

[keiferski]

This belief, which is omnipresent at media orgs like TechCrunch, isn’t one that comes from scientific studies or careful reasoning, so I don’t think citations will do much. It’s more of a tribalistic social belief; the other team thinks X so I have to think not X.

[pjc50]

I think, ironically, the best example might be matters around election fraud and Jan 6, where people somehow talked themselves into conspiracy to commit Federal crimes; Trump was eventually moderated off Twitter but not by the state, and indeed a lot of people got upset that the head of state was being (correctly) moderated by a private platform and not the other way round.