Regulation of Online Media

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

That means nothing. The left wing of the Democratic party wants to break up big tech because they believe it has too much power.

Biden Eyes Big Tech Critic For Regulatory Post: Media

Biden plans to nominate a prominent advocate of breaking up Big Tech firms to a key regulatory post, suggesting an aggressive antitrust stance.

www.ibtimes.com

In addition, Biden today spoke in favor of unionization of Amazon.

MSN

Wait didn't we break up big tech before 20 years ago. I remember AOL, Lycos and Yahoo in the early 2000's were seen as "Big Tech" but Yahoo and AOL was overshadowed by Google, Twitter, Facebook, Wordpress by the time 2005-2006 hits.

If one wants to break Big Tech it's going to have to be in the form of new companies stepping in and somehow getting a usership size bigger than Google, Facebook and Twitter in a multi year marketing process.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Wait didn't we break up big tech before 20 years ago.

Not through governmental action, at least.

 

[TheBigA]

If one wants to break Big Tech it's going to have to be in the form of new companies stepping in and somehow getting a usership size bigger than Google, Facebook and Twitter in a multi year marketing process.

Not exactly. When the government broke up AT&T in the 70s, the result was a bunch of "baby bells." What they're talking about for Facebook is to split off Instagram.

 

[TheBigA]

So today, Senator Thune put forward a bill that he said would reform Section 230:

Thune, Schatz Introduce Legislation to Update Section 230, Strengthen Rules, Transparency on Online Content Moderation, Hold Internet Companies Accountable for Moderation Practices

U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet, today joined Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), ranking member of the subcommittee, in introducing the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act, new bipartisan...

www.thune.senate.gov

It's not repeal, it's reform, and he got a Democrat to co-sponsor.

 

[Delete My Account]

But there are stated rules and an appeals process. Users agree to them when they sign up. What could they possibly do that would reassure Thune and company that they weren't targeting the groups he thinks they're targeting?

 

[TheBigA]

But there are stated rules and an appeals process. Users agree to them when they sign up. What could they possibly do that would reassure Thune and company that they weren't targeting the groups he thinks they're targeting?

It'll be interesting to hear the reactions from the social media platforms to these proposals. The one line that bothers me is:

Allowing state attorneys general to enforce federal civil laws against online platforms that have the same substantive elements of the laws and regulations of that state

We have some states trying to play hanky panky with their laws, and this seems to give them a window to apply their local laws to a national platform. Congress wants to narrow the protections the platforms have. I think this is too broad.

 

[Kelly A]

We have some states trying to play hanky panky with their laws, and this seems to give them a window to apply their local laws to a national platform. Congress wants to narrow the protections the platforms have. I think this is too broad.

And therein lies the problem... Congress doesn't know enough about social media platforms now, or whatever the future holds, to create relevant laws or rules to regulate it with an even hand. All they know is the broad politics that they parrot from constituents; (Democrats "Facebook has become a tool of pushing the agenda of the wealthy and powerful". (Republican's "Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok have become tools of the Liberal Left and our conservative speech is being stifled by the Tech CEO's."

Really it boils down to: How do you regulate perception? Answer: You can't. So, if they allow the political whims of State AG's to develop rules on a state-by-state basis: (A) Good luck enforcing that. (B) State Taxpayer dollars will be wasted fighting Tech companies with a lot more money than States have. The result? Expensive Political Theater.

 

[gr8oldies]

And therein lies the problem... Congress doesn't know enough about social media platforms now, or whatever the future holds, to create relevant laws or rules to regulate it with an even hand. All they know is the broad politics that they parrot from constituents; (Democrats "Facebook has become a tool of pushing the agenda of the wealthy and powerful". (Republican's "Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok have become tools of the Liberal Left and our conservative speech is being stifled by the Tech CEO's."

Really it boils down to: How do you regulate perception? Answer: You can't. So, if they allow the political whims of State AG's to develop rules on a state-by-state basis: (A) Good luck enforcing that. (B) State Taxpayer dollars will be wasted fighting Tech companies with a lot more money than States have. The result? Expensive Political Theater.

"Mr. Attorney General, my friends aren't liking or commenting on my political posts!' Gee, maybe your friends got tired of your non-stop political rants and unfollowed you

 

[TheBigA]

State Taxpayer dollars will be wasted fighting Tech companies with a lot more money than States have. The result? Expensive Political Theater.

And perhaps that's what has to happen. Similar to the ex-president suing various states for election fraud. Yesterday the Arizona Republican Party had their suit thrown out, plus they had to pay the state's court costs, for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

What they're trying to do is indirectly regulate speech, and there's a line in the constitution that says they can't do that. It starts with the words "Congress shall make no law...." No law means what it says.

 

[boombox4]

I see the proposed law (especially the state attorney general part) as a big legal mess that eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court, if 230 is modified in the way the proposed law suggests.

 

[TheBigA]

I see the proposed law (especially the state attorney general part) as a big legal mess that eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court, if 230 is modified in the way the proposed law suggests.

Part of the problem I see is we have people (both in states and congress) who don't understand the difference between personal ideology and regulation. They're trying to impose ideology under the guise of regulation. That usually smacks face first into the constitution. At least that's what we saw during the previous administration.

 

[TheBigA]

Congress is looking to blame social media for the Jan 6 insurrection, rather than the people who posted the content. The heads of big tech companies testified on Capitol Hill, and they were asked if they bore any responsibility for Jan 6. Congress didn't like the answer.

'Yes or no?' U.S. lawmakers fume over Big Tech's answers on misinformation

In their first appearance before Congress since Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, the chief executives of Facebook, Google and Twitter were asked by U.S. lawmakers whether their platforms bore some responsibility for the riot: "yes or no?"

www.reuters.com

But they don't understand social media. As Zuckerman explained, they built the platform, they didn't create the content. That's like blaming gun manufacturers for mass killings. The real debate is about moderation of content. Conservatives don't like it when big tech moderates conservative content, and then blame the companies when their sites are used by far right terrorists. They can't have it both ways. Either they want active moderation, or they don't. Make up your minds.

 

[Mikey Radio]

Conservatives don't like it when big tech moderates conservative content, and then blame the companies when their sites are used by far right terrorists. They can't have it both ways. Either they want active moderation, or they don't. Make up your minds.

I think you'll find they have the same mindset about government. Supposedly Republicans are against big government and government oversight, but in states like Florida where they don't like some of the laws or regulations passed by the local counties or cities, for instance, they're passing laws to give all the power to the state, which in FL's case happens to be run by a "political trifecta" - A Republican governor and majority Republican state house and senate. See below from the Orlando Sentinel just 3 days ago:

"Florida lawmakers are cooking up lots of new ways this year to seize more power from cities and counties.
One bill would prohibit local governments — when awarding contracts — from giving preference to companies that pay decent wages or provide benefits. Another would make it harder for governments to regulate home-based businesses. Another would prohibit signing contracts with Amazon, Facebook, Twitter or Google. Another would handcuff counties trying to pay for growth through impact fees on new development. Another, written by the America Natural Gas Association, would impede local efforts to convert to clean energy sources.
A particularly vile bill would restrict the ability of a mayor or county chair to impose restrictions in a time of emergency. It would allow the governor or Legislature to invalidate a local emergency order. With a snap of the fingers, the governor could decide to negate an order mandating masks.
All it currently takes for the state to prevent local governments from enforcing rules is a simple majority."

 

[gr8oldies]

I think you'll find they have the same mindset about government. Supposedly Republicans are against big government and government oversight, but in states like Florida where they don't like some of the laws or regulations passed by the local counties or cities, for instance, they're passing laws to give all the power to the state, which in FL's case happens to be run by a "political trifecta" - A Republican governor and majority Republican state house and senate. See below from the Orlando Sentinel just 3 days ago:

"Florida lawmakers are cooking up lots of new ways this year to seize more power from cities and counties.
One bill would prohibit local governments — when awarding contracts — from giving preference to companies that pay decent wages or provide benefits. Another would make it harder for governments to regulate home-based businesses. Another would prohibit signing contracts with Amazon, Facebook, Twitter or Google. Another would handcuff counties trying to pay for growth through impact fees on new development. Another, written by the America Natural Gas Association, would impede local efforts to convert to clean energy sources.
A particularly vile bill would restrict the ability of a mayor or county chair to impose restrictions in a time of emergency. It would allow the governor or Legislature to invalidate a local emergency order. With a snap of the fingers, the governor could decide to negate an order mandating masks.
All it currently takes for the state to prevent local governments from enforcing rules is a simple majority."

Same deal in Tennessee where we have almost absolute one-party-rule (and I have been told if I don't like it, and don't worship Donald Trump, I should leave). They're passing those same laws, and we can be sure, that if we ever have another pandemic, we will allow and encourage it to spread like wildfire (but you had better drag your oxygen machine to the mall for shopping, shopping and more shopping because the economy before you suffocate to death).
As for the social media aspect, doing social media for businesses means a constant struggle to be seen in newsfeeds, but Trumpists are demanding their political rants, threats against public officials, and conspiracy theories be showing in the top position in everyone's newsfeed or be sued. It doesn't work that way.

 

[boombox4]

As for the social media aspect, doing social media for businesses means a constant struggle to be seen in newsfeeds, but Trumpists are demanding their political rants, threats against public officials, and conspiracy theories be showing in the top position in everyone's newsfeed or be sued. It doesn't work that way.

Perhaps in your neck of the woods, or newsfeed, that's what conservatives are calling for, but in my newsfeed, they simply don't want to be shut down for expressing opinions... it's not the right to be plastered on top, it's the ability to be heard at all.

 

[ixnay]

Very true. Except that newspapers are increasingly turning into online websites. The only 'circulation' growth the NY Times, WA Post, LA Times has had, for example, is online subscriptions. They are slowly turning into internet operations.

And at least one (the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) turned *exclusively* into an internet operation. So did mags like Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, and Cooking Light.

ixnay

 

[ixnay]

Completely agree. Watching those congressional hearings was cringe-worthy. These politicians don't know what any of this means. Their Aid's maintain whatever public facing social media pages or tweets coming out of their offices. They're so insulated from that world that it's laughable that together, they would be in any position to propose laws or policy related to something they have no clue about.

All that while they while away the hours in their ivory towers 'til they're covered up with flowers in the back of a black limousine (apologies to Joe South).

ixnay

 

[ixnay]

And at least one (the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) turned *exclusively* into an internet operation. So did mags like Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, and Cooking Light.

ixnay

To clarify, those mags still put out occasional one-off print special eds (I saw a one-off print ed of Cooking Light in a local supermarket yesterday).

ixnay

 

[TheBigA]

Perhaps in your neck of the woods, or newsfeed, that's what conservatives are calling for, but in my newsfeed, they simply don't want to be shut down for expressing opinions... it's not the right to be plastered on top, it's the ability to be heard at all.

The only problem is when their "opinions" include things like shooting people they don't like or planning an insurrection.

Congress was trying to blame the insurrection of Twitter Facebook and Google. At the same time, they don't want those companies to ban threatening or violent opinions. If you're going to hold them responsible for user-generated content, then they should have the right to ban that content.

 

[Mikey Radio]

I don't think most people have an issue with "opinions" being posted on Facebook or social media. The problem is when people post and share things like memes and official looking "news" items that are blatantly false and can be proven so. When those things are posted and then read and shared by many and it goes unchecked, if enough uninformed people believe them to be true, it can have a real impact on things like election outcomes and public sentiment. In that case I think social media companies do have an obligation to either restrict provably false content, or label it in such a way so users are aware it's not factual. Posting those types of items is not expressing an "opinion", it's creating a false narrative.

Keep in mind as well that, it's been proven at least during the 2016 election cycle that many hot button content items posted and spread on social media were originally put there by bots and those in other countries, in an attempt to stir the pot and potentially try and sway an election. Spreading those postings on social media unchecked furthers their cause and plays into their hands.