Another platform that needs reform is Amazon. Most people don't know that Amazon reviews may be censored without valid reasons or any recourse at all, especially book reviews. And not just particular reviews, but all reviews, past and future, for unspecified reasons, which could easily be based on the Amazon censor's ideology, politics, biases ,or ignorance.
Hell no it is not up to Zuck to "keep Trump at arm's length". That is the illiberal Constitutionally-incorrect issue that Zuck is fixing. It is not up to platforms to moderate content other than simple common decency as defined by current FCC regulations and what children have access to. The consumers of content are the only control source for what they ingest and believe.
I have never thought that fact checking is a viable approach for all the reasons that it hasn’t worked so far. The trick is to design a self-correcting system that will provide users with assertions, counter-assertions, reports of evidence, refusal of evidence, as deep as they need to go. This is not a top-down problem.
I would support the following modification of the DMCA’s exempting platforms from liability for user-generated content:
In order to qualify for the exemption, sites would have to adhere to free speech rules, not forbidding any offensive-but-legal content. Sites choosing to moderate their content would become legally responsible for the content they allowed.
Crowdsourced fact checking might be a key component of strategies to keep free-speech sites from becoming unprofitable cesspools.
I have never thought that fact checking is a viable approach for all the reasons that it hasn’t. The trick is to design a self-correcting system that will provide users with assertions, counter-assertions, reports of evidence, refusal of evidence, as deep as they need to go. This is not a top-down problem.
Another platform that needs reform is Amazon. Most people don't know that Amazon reviews may be censored without valid reasons or any recourse at all, especially book reviews. And not just particular reviews, but all reviews, past and future, for unspecified reasons, which could easily be based on the Amazon censor's ideology, politics, biases ,or ignorance.
Hell no it is not up to Zuck to "keep Trump at arm's length". That is the illiberal Constitutionally-incorrect issue that Zuck is fixing. It is not up to platforms to moderate content other than simple common decency as defined by current FCC regulations and what children have access to. The consumers of content are the only control source for what they ingest and believe.
I have never thought that fact checking is a viable approach for all the reasons that it hasn’t worked so far. The trick is to design a self-correcting system that will provide users with assertions, counter-assertions, reports of evidence, refusal of evidence, as deep as they need to go. This is not a top-down problem.
I would support the following modification of the DMCA’s exempting platforms from liability for user-generated content:
In order to qualify for the exemption, sites would have to adhere to free speech rules, not forbidding any offensive-but-legal content. Sites choosing to moderate their content would become legally responsible for the content they allowed.
Crowdsourced fact checking might be a key component of strategies to keep free-speech sites from becoming unprofitable cesspools.
I have never thought that fact checking is a viable approach for all the reasons that it hasn’t. The trick is to design a self-correcting system that will provide users with assertions, counter-assertions, reports of evidence, refusal of evidence, as deep as they need to go. This is not a top-down problem.