Maybe it will stop -
The EU is far ahead of regulating tech and AI, will the US catch up? I doubt it, many in the US conflate freedom of speech with being able to post random, potentially harmful information to social media.
3 Likes
How is restricted free? Who decides? You? Me? Them?
The Captain
9 Likes
Right on target, Captain!
As the Romans said: “Who watches the watchers?” (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? )
Cheers!
Murph
7 Likes
The heart of it with TikTok is elsewhere. If you are an aspiring online business, only a kid starting out with a website, you will want to add your link to your profile. TikTok requires your Soc Sec Numbers and proof as in a driver’s license that you are who you say you are.
In other words tens of millions of SS numbers will be screwed with in the coming years. Lives financially will be up ended.
Even if the Chinese government never got a hold of the numbers, the hackers at the company will sell them to people of dubious means.
Yes, happens in the US, but here we can jail people who create scams. Hackers in China we won’t get.
3 Likes
The problem with free speech in social media is anonymity.
Freedom without accountability is anarchy. If the New York Times or CNN gets something wrong there is an entity that the aggrieved party can hold accountable and take legal action against. The same should be true for any mass media outlet, including social media.
If people want to say stuff on social media it should be mandatory that their name and address go with their statement. If they aren’t identified then the publisher should be held accountable.
IMO it is one or the other. A social media platform can allow people to say whatever they want as long as they are clearly identified. Or a platform can allow its participants to be anonymous but then take full responsibility for the things said.
13 Likes
I want to agree with this sentiment but I can’t.
The Federalist Papers were written and published anonymously. If that is protected speech, then other anonymous communication should be able to as well. That being said, the SM company should absolutely require documentation of the individual making the post in the case of libel or slander. There needs to be a recourse.
2 Likes
There was a piece on the news recently: a guy was wondering why the insurance on his Chevy Bolt went up, a lot. Turns out that GM uses the On Star feature of it’s cars to monitor the driver’s behavior, in personally identifiable form. GM then sells that data to LexisNexis, in personally identifiable form. LexisNexis then sells the data to the company that insures that person’s car. The insurance company uses the data as an excuse to raise the owner’s insurance rate.
11 Likes
Yep but we can get a legal handle on that. Might not like the outcome if I have to slow down.
I can not just slow down if a Chinese hacker is creating fraudulent credit card accounts or whatever. We have enough trouble with Russia.
1 Like
You have a valid point about businesses who have found their audience on TikTok. Many startups now work on social media, including TikTok. This platform is not only about stupid dancing on camera.
Well, I’m sorry for the young entrepreneurs who are considering using this platform in the near future.
3 Likes
I don’t know what the laws were in 18th century America but I assume that the publishers of the Federalist Papers would have been held responsible for any misinformation.
I’m not albaby, but I believe that is the case for 21st century America:
Under standard common-law principles, a person who publishes a defamatory statement by another bears the same liability for the statement as if he or she had initially created it. Thus, a book publisher or a newspaper publisher can be held liable for anything that appears within its pages. The theory behind this “publisher” liability is that a publisher has the knowledge, opportunity, and ability to exercise editorial control over the content of its publications. Immunity for Online Publishers Under the Communications Decency Act | Digital Media Law Project.
However, congress declared that online services were distributors rather than publishers and so are not accountable for what they make available to the public:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants interactive online services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from tort liability so long as the information at issue is provided by a third party.
IMO, this immunity should only apply if the online service identifies the third party sufficiently to be able to hold the third party accountable.
Again, IMO the absence of accountability makes a mockery of online “free speech”.
4 Likes
No. They may have been held liable for libel or slander/defamation, but disinformation has never been illegal. “Snake oil” and “yellow journalist” have a long history in our country.
Don’t make the mistake of conflating defamatory statements and disinformation. They are not synonymous.
7 Likes
You make good points. Now let’s make it personal.
Are you willing to post your name, address here so we know who you are? Is anyone that posts here willing to do that?
Just curious.
6 Likes
Not the government. I’m a poor choice on account of my biases. You seem like a busy guy, probably not you.
I’m not proposing more governmental restrictions should be in place. I’m just pointing out that freedom of speech makes regulation in the US much more difficult. This is true for both governmental regulation and companies wanting to regulate their content.
2 Likes
That’s a very good point! The difficulty is how to achieve accountability without sacrificing privacy.
This is extreme and in my opinion unacceptable. How many people have gotten death threats during the BLM riots? There needs to be some kind of clearing house that satisfies all involved parties, stressing accountability and privacy.
Censorship is not the solution.
The Captain
5 Likes
All forms of prior restraint, of censorship, are abhorrent to me. As I noted in another reply, I’m all in favor of accountability.
The Captain
1 Like
Do you think companies should be able to regulate content on their platform? If not, how is that not violating their free speech.
Our modern tech has obsoleted humanity’s long time highly evolved systems of individual and communal responsibility, honesty, and even meaning (watch tiktok for five minutes and then contemplate on meaning, and then do X and contemplate honesty).
We need to evolve social/responsibility connectivity anew.
Even more terrifying is how most of this sits on an ancient and deeply infected bedrock of religousity (e.g., the prohibitions on “giving false witness” as a cardinal evil).
Interesting times!
daivd
11 Likes
to be clear, this legislation against TikTok is not about freedom of speech or how harmful social media are. If that were the case, META and all the other social networks or platform would be under scrutiny. Why not go after all the social networks?
The reasons for targeting TikTok is because of it is owned by a chinese Company: ByteDance. It is a geopolitical play.
ByteDance is NOT owned by the government any more is Facebook owned by the US government.
There is no evidence that the Chinese government is using any TikTok data. TikTok will not sell. So whatever tactics is employed, the US will have to banned it if the issue is forced.
Naive? That is the comeback of some. Who is naive? When it comes from China it is propaganda. But when it is spewed out from the US media it is the truth? There is propaganda on both sides. There will be no resolution if that path is taken since neither side will back off.
Some of us are contributing to this and we should stop because it does not help world peace.
tj
2 Likes
One thing should be totally clear, Free Speech is a restriction only on government as set forth in the Constitution.
Private companies can and should set their own policies. The problem arises when government coerces private parties to censor content the government dislikes as was disclosed in the Twitter Files.
The Captain
5 Likes
Then it’s not a free speech issue. It’s more like the open border issue.
The Captain
1 Like