> you could just offer additions to the list of carveouts, or give your alternative take
I don't see one. It's DOA. The point is starting with a list of carve-outs to any framework is an early sign it's fucked.
I do believe we have a problem with free speech in modern America. But we also have an unprecedentedly broad amount of it. Given the elementary issue of spam, it's unclear we have any consensus around what censorship means on social media.
> The point is starting with a list of carve-outs to any framework is an early sign it's fucked.
While I think this is a fair point in general, in specific cases it can be legitimate. We should not be powerless to legislate unless we're able to articulate some ideal discriminator that picks out only the intended target and nothing else. The world is almost never that tidy. We can probably agree in broad strokes what spam is, even if we can't articulate a sufficient decision criteria to identify it with 100% accuracy. We can also agree that one man's passion project shouldn't be powerless to ensure his forum remains on-topic. We can also agree that mega communications platforms have become so engrained into modern society that being censored or removed from them can have outsized effects on one's ability to effectively engage with society (e.g. losing access to your email, kicked off payment platforms).
There are a lot of grey areas in between, and identifying carveouts are one way to handle the messiness while still working towards the overarching goals. It's not perfect, but doing nothing in this case is worse in the sense of how far we are from our ideals.
> in specific cases it can be legitimate. We should not be powerless to legislate unless we're able to articulate some ideal discriminator that picks out only the intended target and nothing else
Sure, but there should be a guiding principle. The point isn't we're powerless to act. It's that we should act thoughtfuly. Defaulting to carve-outs indicates the idea is inchoate.
Even in this thread, we've expanded from major social media platforms to e-mail providers and payment platforms. We're still brainstorming the general scope of the idea.
That the problem is big and requires care doesn't strike me as a substantive objection to the effort of addressing it using the tools that we have (legislation, however imperfect).
> That the problem is big and requires care doesn't strike me as a substantive objection to the effort of addressing it using the tools that we have (legislation, however imperfect)
Again, not disagreeing. Just saying the solution as presented is obviously flawed. And I haven't seen a solution whose proponents don't similarly throw their hands up with generalities the moment it's poked.
"Throw my hands up" doesn't seem like a fair characterization. I wasn't offering legislation, I was offering a framework within which the details can be fleshed out that perhaps would lead to practical legislation (I mean, this is an HN comment after all, there's only so much you can reasonably expect). You seemed to disagree with the effort entirely, but your critique merely points to difficulties inherent in legislating nebulous phenomena. I certainly don't disagree, but I fail to see why that should short-circuit the effort. If that wasn't your intention, then perhaps we don't disagree much at all.
I don't see one. It's DOA. The point is starting with a list of carve-outs to any framework is an early sign it's fucked.
I do believe we have a problem with free speech in modern America. But we also have an unprecedentedly broad amount of it. Given the elementary issue of spam, it's unclear we have any consensus around what censorship means on social media.