What content should social media be liable for?

[Dave Gray]

There's kind of an interesting debate about the internet / websites / social media and this stuff is going to the courts.

There was a law made in the early Internet age (1996) that basically you can't sue a website for content posted by its users.  Essentially, TDMMC isn't liable if one of you comes on here and says some bullshit and there's crime as a result.

But social media is a little bit different, because they curate content, make ad revenue, and then recommend content that they theoretically know is bullshit to people susceptible to it based on an algorithm.  So, like....if YouTube hosts ISIS recruitment videos, recommends them to likely depressed, incel racists because the algorithm says these people are most likely to engage, and then that person goes a shoots up a mosque -- does YouTube have any responsibility?

I just made that case up, but there can be any number of situations.

Essentially, if you run a TV network, you're responsible for the content on the network to some extent.  Is YouTube responsible if they know its harmful and promote it for ad revenue anyway???

After listening to some experts about it, this is pretty uncharted, but the best outcome from the courts is probably not to specify too much one way or another so that individual cases can be heard and there won't be some overall blanket protection to hide from.

[pondwater]

They should have to officially declare if they are a publisher of content or a host of content.

If they declare to be a publisher of content. They can edit, curate, and delete whatever they want to. However, since they are the publisher and editor, they should be held 100% accountable for everything being published on their platform.

If they decide that they are just host of content. They should be able only edit or delete things that are illegal like threats, harassment, fraud, theft, gambling, drug trafficking, prostitution, child pornography, etc. In this case they are only responsible if they don't take down illegal things. Mean words, hateful words, misinformation, lies, political speech, things you disagree with, etc. aren't illegal and therefore they should should forced to host it all equally.

You can't have it both ways. But that's exactly what online and and social media have been doing. Simply categorize each company as a content publisher or a content host.

[CF DolFan]

If they decide that they are just host of content. They should be able only edit or delete things that are illegal like threats, harassment, fraud, theft, gambling, drug trafficking, prostitution, child pornography, etc. In this case they are only responsible if they don't take down illegal things. Mean words, hateful words, misinformation, lies, political speech, things you disagree with, etc. aren't illegal and therefore they should should forced to host it all equally.

This is where I think the accountability lies but it it easily goes way beyond. As well, if you are a known terrorist or organization funding terrorism you should be removed. Kind of like the whole no fly list. The problem is in this day and age anyone who disagrees is branded a terrorist.

[Sunstroke]

If Elon Musk says that something is the truth, and qualifies as "free speech," that should be good enough for me.

 

[Spider-Dan]

If they decide that they are just host of content. They should be able only edit or delete things that are illegal like threats, harassment, fraud, theft, gambling, drug trafficking, prostitution, child pornography, etc. In this case they are only responsible if they don't take down illegal things. Mean words, hateful words, misinformation, lies, political speech, things you disagree with, etc. aren't illegal and therefore they should should forced to host it all equally.

So YouTube should be required to host pornography under this model?

[pondwater]

So YouTube should be required to host pornography under this model?

Yes, if they identify as a content host. If the content is not illegal what does it matter?

If they don't want to be an open forum that hosts all legal content they can identify as a publisher and edit and delete as they see fit.

[Dave Gray]

^ I don't see how that makes any sense.

You can still have terms of service.  I don't have to allow people to be racist on here or have porn or whatever.  You are still allowed to have rules as a private organization.

[Phishfan]

This is slippery. I think even as hosts a site absolutely needs to be held liable to some extent. Is there discussion that refutes content is one criteria but I don't think that is enough alone. How long is content allowed to stay should be something else along with the nature of the content. These things are Grey area discussion

[pondwater]

^ I don't see how that makes any sense.

You can still have terms of service.  I don't have to allow people to be racist on here or have porn or whatever.  You are still allowed to have rules as a private organization.

If you want to have rules against activity that is fully legal then identify as a publisher. Then moderate the content and accept responsibility for what YOU decide to publish. If I want to post misinformation or something negative about politics, a vaccine, or a group of people that I disagree with, I should be allowed to as long as it's within the law. Content hosts should be classified as town square type places that people can express themselves within the law. Whoever disagrees has the option to be a publisher. Trying to have it both ways is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

This is slippery. I think even as hosts a site absolutely needs to be held liable to some extent. Is there discussion that refutes content is one criteria but I don't think that is enough alone. How long is content allowed to stay should be something else along with the nature of the content. These things are Grey area discussion

Yes, content hosts should still be held accountable for obviously illegal content. Racism, misinformation, and hateful speech is not against the law.

[Spider-Dan]

pondwater, if I understand correctly, you are saying that every platform should follow one of two rules:

1) Your company accepts full, direct legal and financial responsibility for all content posted to it
2) Your company broadcasts (legal) pornography, racism, and extremist political views without limit

You... do understand that the actual outcome of such a society is a hard crackdown on anything that is remotely controversial, right?  There would be FAR LESS free speech.  A world in which YouTube has to choose between allowing Nazi porn and banning all political speech entirely is one that quickly results in the banning of all political speech on YouTube, and it isn't close.

Rumble, Gettr, Gab... they would not exist in this society.  Not in any way that you would recognize.

[pondwater]

pondwater, if I understand correctly, you are saying that every platform should follow one of two rules:

1) Your company accepts full, direct legal and financial responsibility for all content posted to it
2) Your company broadcasts (legal) pornography, racism, and extremist political views without limit

You... do understand that the actual outcome of such a society is a hard crackdown on anything that is remotely controversial, right?  There would be FAR LESS free speech.  A world in which YouTube has to choose between allowing Nazi porn and banning all political speech entirely is one that quickly results in the banning of all political speech on YouTube, and it isn't close.

Rumble, Gettr, Gab... they would not exist in this society.  Not in any way that you would recognize.

Thank you for your opinion....

[Spider-Dan]

I think you've been drinking too much of the conservative Kool-Aid if you believe otherwise.

If your complaint now is that conservatives are being unfairly suppressed by social media, you can't seriously believe that the world you're advocating is one where Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, etc. are not completely kicked off of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and all other social media.

Do you think that a world where social media companies crack down on all controversial speech is... bad for liberals?  You're just talking about a world where more speech has to be approved by corporations first; you know, the way society broadly worked before the internet.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of that model, but it doesn't undermine my world the way it does for the "scientists and doctors are corrupt" crowd.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

[pondwater]

I think you've been drinking too much of the conservative Kool-Aid if you believe otherwise.

If your complaint now is that conservatives are being unfairly suppressed by social media, you can't seriously believe that the world you're advocating is one where Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, etc. are not completely kicked off of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and all other social media.

Do you think that a world where social media companies crack down on all controversial speech is... bad for liberals?  You're just talking about a world where more speech has to be approved by corporations first; you know, the way society broadly worked before the internet.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of that model, but it doesn't undermine my world the way it does for the "scientists and doctors are corrupt" crowd.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

Again thanks for your opinion. And in my opinion that's perfectly acceptable if as a company that's the option they choose. However, in that case they should be held 100% accountable for what THEY publish.