Social media.How should it be regulated?

amandstu

What would be the extremes of theoretical societal intervention in Social Media?

Zero intervention(ie let the owners make their own rules -or none) versus

A draconian legal framework with plenty of rapid and effective enforcement capabilities so that nobody could shout "fire" in a crowded building or otherwise be deemed to be breaking what would be deemed to be the law in real life?

In my view the resources need to be in place before any regulation is to be applied as there is very little worse than laws that cannot be enforced.

What might be effective intermediate but effective measures in what seems to be a fast moving environment?

And of course who will regulate the regulators (if we ever get that far)?

Pauliedragon

It won't happen but put them under the same rules as the print or tv media defamation laws would be a start. Didn't Brazil shut down X recently. It can be done. Whether it should be is another matter when the argument is free speech which isn't absolute in most countries.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123044314#Comment_123044314

It seems to me that one of the greatest dilemmas is this question of who is the final ( or most consequential) arbiter of making ,interpreting and enforcing the rules.

I wonder if we will see any movement in the States in this area? (I don't think in the medium term anyone can just ignore the problem even with their incoming President)

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123044314#Comment_123044314

It won't happen? Defamation laws already apply to social media, and always have.

Back in the day, Boards.ie was subject to action legal by promotors MCD due to comments made on here about the Oxegen festival

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123044420#Comment_123044420

So do you see any problems with the laws as they currently apply in Ireland?

And,separately but unavoidably globally or at least in the regions that affect us?

thereiver

If you post hate speech it should be removed your profile should be down voted so only your followers see it if enough people complain your account should be blocked hate speech is insulting minorities LGBT groups travelers or people from certain countries there must be moderators speech that supports illegal acts or terrorism should blocked or removed

Jim Herring

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123044862#Comment_123044862

Who decides this “certain countries” list?

Why do you think it is okay to “hate” people from the countries not on your list?

o1s1n

I'd honestly love to see them all viewed as a pox on humanity, unregulated and shut down.

We could all go back to having reasonable debate on internet fora like this one and communicating via instant messaging services like ICQ, AIM, MSN etc.

Would obviously never happen unfortunately but one can dream.

thereiver

The problem I see is meta or insta cannot comply with conflicting laws in the eu America the UK other countries some country's will be blocked to avoid large fines

Meta is now bowing down to trump moving moderators to Texas the most extreme right wing state that bans abortion and even has laws against people helping people to travel for an abortion

Meta will now allow hate speech against LGBT groups and gay people in the name of so called free speech people should be down voted if the post obviously fales misinformation or Harras other users

This new policy on removing moderators is bowing down to trump and maybe to save money on paying moderators

I know it's hard to moderate speech since different cultures have different laws customs about things like LGBT culture and religious culture which vary widely from America the eu and around the world

Pauliedragon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123044420#Comment_123044420

The laws clearly aren't applied so. The Football player in England charged with rape can't be named by newspapers but his name is all over social media including this site. An old school friend of mine stabbed his brother to death a few years ago in a psychotic state. Local media were told under no circumstances reveal his name but it was all over social media. Those 2 young lads who tortured that poor Russian girl a few years ago couldn't be named in the media but the names were all over social media. If the laws are there why not enforce them.

joseywhales

Honestly I suspect that eventually social media will lose all value, noone is going to trust any information, future generations will grow up understanding this and lose interest in it.

One issue I have is this ideology of relative truth. Toy dismay over the last 20 years people have begun to accept that we can crowd source facts, as if things like science can be decided on by a popular vote. News flash, all people are usually incorrect. Just because everyone believes x to be true, it is not evidence of the proposed fact.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123044916#Comment_123044916

You are confusing defamation with gag orders. If somebody is charged with a crime, it’s factual to report that crime (thus not defamation). But there are often restrictions other than defamation in place.

If UK courts. can gag the media, it only applies in the UK. Irish law heavily restricts media, but only has jurisdiction in Ireland.

So boards.ie heavily moderates legal proceedings, but it doesn’t apply to Facebook. And saying “it should apply” is ridiculous. Ireland can’t dictate the law to the world, no more that Saudi Arbus or Iran enforce Sharia law online.

drunkmonkey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123044862#Comment_123044862

Some of those group believe children should be castrated to help them.

You want those who oppose that to be silenced.

Explain it to me like I'm 10 because I'm not buying what's your selling right now.

highpitcheric

a 2 tier system with different 2 enforcement codes.

1 authoritarian net, a user id is applied for formally, semi-state, hard moderation, consequences. And therefore more trustworthy.

1 sh1t-net, such as how x is now, say pretty much what you want, only loose moderation, nobody takes it serious. Its some drunk or bot called Farts2000_Yolo.

They complement each other. If theres something the powers that be dont want you saying you can say it on the sh1t net, and if you're throwing around big claims then you can be challenged to put your money where your mouth is and come say it with verification and consequences. perhaps there can be a monetary bond involved.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123044892#Comment_123044892

I'd be all for the government making these crappy companies charge each user £5 a month for their accounts as a tax until they cough up what they owe. Doubt it'd happen but as you said, a man can dream. I'd love to see how many users stay on the cesspits once they have to pay for it. It'd also keep children off these ghastly sites as well so another win there.

With regulation, there is a sticking point which is who is responsible for the content. If someone espouses genocidal views towards a certain demographic, is the site or the author responsible? Traditionally, companies would employ people to create content so responsibility was easy to assign. This blurs the line.

Glaceon

I’d say to make the platform responsible for the content posted on it, bring them in line with traditional media.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123046503#Comment_123046503

I appreciate the thought but when you've millions of people putting out crap in a minute, it might not be practical. I agree that the platform is responsible for what it hosts.

threeball

Sites like X need to be outright banned in the EU. Musk has used race baiting, lies and misinformation, manipulation of his posts and others and selective silencing to push an agenda that's seen him promote his political allies and agenda in order to gain power. Now he's moved on to the UK and Germany and is dabbling in Ireland too.

He's a dangerous influence and his means of manipulation and self promotion should be removed. Once Zuckerberg and these other fcuks see which way the wind is blowing they'll start to comply with existing regulations.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123046615#Comment_123046615

I don't disagree but I specifically started the thread to ask for opinions as to what kind of regulations should apply to Social Media in the coming days and years.

I can see an argument for banning X but it would have to be because it was breaking the rules and it is those rules that I am asking about what they should be.

I thought @highpitcheric 's 2 tier approach sounded interesting .

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123046298#Comment_123046298

Maybe also allow the OP in any thread to act as a moderator in it (a detail)

threeball

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123046969#Comment_123046969

I dont know if it's possible to moderate in a world with such vastly different standards. Vile things that people hide behind freedom of speech in the US would be seen a unacceptable on this side of the pond. Something else we view as acceptable wouldn't be viewed the same in the middle east. There can be no hard and fast rules for social media to govern all markets.

It should therefore be done on a case by case basis where content would be limited to the standards acceptance of the US or EU or wherever. It would be up to meta or YouTube to ensure the standards are met.

Not sure about Tiers. Would the Russian government be considered Tier 1 with all the lies they spout. Or the American administration for that matter. Giving implied gravitas to bodies well known to promote lies won't do anybody any good.

If humanity wants any chance going forward the best course of action would be to ban them all. Geeks with no social skills guiding the world on how we should interact. You couldn't make it up. I personally cannot think of a single positive that social media has produced.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123047028#Comment_123047028

Not sure about Tiers. Would the Russian government be considered Tier 1 with all the lies they spout?

In what context?Eg if Vlad had a twitter account like Trump used to?

Or just the use of fake accounts to influence the consumption of (mis/dis) information?

Is there also a problem that the public are just willing dupes (and talk is the cheapest commodity)?

They will just find ways of tuning into ideas that confirm their own opinions(possibly the characteristic of us as a species that condemns us to bottom dwelling for the forseeable future)

techdiver

One of the greatest scourge to ever be inflicted on humanity and a clear and present danger to political and global stability. In bygone years charlatans like Trump would never come close to being elected in America but social media has brain washed a significant portion of the American electorate (the ones that lack critical thinking skills mind you).

In Europe we need to heavily regulate these platforms and go in the complete opposite direction of America where the Republicans have made it clear they want a free for all of misinformation to be freely spread. At the end of the day the Republicans rely on ignorance to win elections and social media lends itself to that more than any other platform.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123047193#Comment_123047193

"In Europe we need to heavily regulate these platforms"

Any particular extra regulations you have in mind?

Are there any existing regulations that are ineffective ?

techdiver

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123047208#Comment_123047208

Opinion is fine but making statements that are "factual" need to be verified.

Independent fact checking of information especially from public figures should be a legal requirement for social media platforms. Or shouldn't be left for platforms to self regulate as that doesn't work as you are left at the mercy of scumbag owners like Musk who is the biggest spreaders of lies on his own platform.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123047228#Comment_123047228

Should there be barriers/requirements as to who can own a media platform?

Or should there be a barrier between who can own them and who has editorial control?

Is there any way to ensure any degree of internal democratic accountability within the organization or can that only be imposed on them from outside?

techdiver

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123047270#Comment_123047270

With proper and enforced regulation ownership should be irrelevant. What we have currently is social media is a play thing and tool used by the ultra wealthy to attempt to shape the world to their view.

Corporations on any guise cannot be left to internally account for themselves in my opinion (see financial regulation for example). Financial institutions only follow rules for the benefit of society because they are forced to. Left to their own devices they will do all and everything to maximise control and profit.

TLDR: There is zero chance that a social media company can self regulate. Only fear of financial penalties will keep them in line.

thereiver

Section 230 protects platforms otherwise meta would be facing 100s of legal cases if say user z says joe blogs uses drugs or had an affair with a young woman than joe blogs has to sue user z for defamation if you say something bad on x about musk or his friends you,ll probably get blocked or banned

The reason musk bought x is that it gives him power and influence as it was used by government officials and politicans and journalists it was like the public square of the internet

Tik tok is being banned because it's Chinese owned even though it's used by 170 million Americans just about every American teenager is on tik tok it's the no one source for new music on the web old Rock bands are coming back on tour because they have a popular song on tik tok

If China wants USA data on citizens it can buy data from dozens of brokers Not to mention the vast amount of data released by hackers by USA companys who have data by breach,s almost in a monthly basis

threeball

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123047934#Comment_123047934

Tik tok is being banned despite Meta being arguably more dangerous and X being infinitely more dangerous.

Both Meta and X have previous form for actively influencing referenda and elections in the UK and US. If Tik Tok have done so, they've been much more covert than the yanks managed.

threeball

Not Vlad per se, but an official Russian or American government account that is used to release info and press releases via X, Meta etc. There's no guarantee that any or all of the info sent out on these accounts will be factual. In fact it's highly likely it will be curated to shape the narrative of their agenda, therefore making it no more reliable than a random Joe or Jill posting from their "Tier 2" account apart from the fact that giving them a "Tier 1" will add weight to their lies.

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123047028#Comment_123047028

There's two things that can be done. the first is removing posts and blocking users.

But the second simpler solution is to adjust the algorithm so it doesn't promote this stuff.

Facebook discovered that posts that were reacted to with an emoji were more likely to be shared. So they heavily promote those posts. However they can also tell a lot about the post based on the emoji used. So they knowingly promote posts that they know can be untrue or dangerous, just to get more engagement.

they found that they can make people happy or depressed based on how they adjust the persons feed. they can even help alleviate some types of depression. But they don't do this. they will make someone feel like crap, if it increases engagement.

Even the act of refreshing your feed is designed to mimic slot machines because it gives a dopamine boot and makes people spend more time on the site. This is especially effective on minors.

Facebook doesn't care about free speech. They don't care about the mental health of their users. They care about profit. they want people to spend longer on the site if it means they can display more ads and make more money.

We need to make sure that they design these tools to benefit us, both as individuals and as a society.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123053641#Comment_123053641

It is understandable ,if disappointing that any company's primary motivator is the pure increase of profits .

That is why regulation is necessary to prevent them growing like a cancer in the body social.

Perhaps in addition to the regulation imposed by the legislature the algorithms employed in SM companies should,in a hopefully virtuous circle include this basic motivation in its (ongoing) makeup and attempt to take the corners off this understandable instinct.

There can in my opinion be problems when a company is expected ,to a degree to act against pure market forces and to attempt on its own to act in the interests of what is best for society.

It needs to be directed to some degree by society to prevent it from "going rogue"(as seems to be what may be happening at the moment as American society rots from the head down with the present political structure and set up)