Thread

1. condenser · 1790500806 · focus · HN ↗

   Facebook election interference has been going on for a long time in Europe. It's a two-tier system where parties outside the establishment have a far lower ban-threshold.

   1. mc32 · 1790505406 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. rapind · 1790514172 · focus · HN ↗

         Look up Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It explains the current situation and should be obvious that it's less than perfect. Basically without this then online platforms would be responsible for the content they host (publishers) and would have been sued into oblivion before any of them got up and running... especially Facebook with it's beginnings. So to compensate there's the good samaritan provision which is the whole censorship thing from the right's perspective (like back during Covid) and the protection from being a publisher let's them host hate speech from the left's perspective.

         Personally I think making them public square is probably the only real solution if you want to keep social media and avoid this drama, or make them liable as publishers and these platforms will disappear overnight (maybe the best result?!?)...

         This carries over into LLMs I presume, which have bias and I assume are not being sued for the content the publish? I'm not really sure about how it applies to LLMs to be honest.

         Regardless, other countries will have different laws, that have different takes on censorship and what private companies are responsible for.

         1. mc32 · 1790514784 · focus · HN ↗

            Ok, but here we have people not from Brazil claiming that a private company is guilty of censorship but also was not guilty of censorship when government "embeds[1]" in the US would flag what they labeled disinformation and blocked discussion on Covid, Covid origins, laptops with evidence, suspended political accounts in the US, etc. So, it seems people want to have it both ways -essentially they want to censor things they disagree with and also don't want censorship of things they agree with.

            [1] Of course, that was plainly censorship with a veneer of plausible deniability (it assumed those embeds could only be truthful and unbiased and in no way politically motivated).

            1. rapind · 1790515189 · focus · HN ↗

               Who are these "people"? I'm certainly not one of them, and I consider myself a progressive.
         2. mcmcmc · 1790518877 · focus · HN ↗

            > Basically without this then online platforms would be responsible for the content they host (publishers) and would have been sued into oblivion before any of them got up and running... especially Facebook with it's beginnings.

            I don’t see this as a problem. They could just as easily have changed their business model and invested more heavily in content moderation. Maybe it wouldn’t have been as profitable, but profit is a great motivator to do bad things.

            1. lokar · 1790520397 · focus · HN ↗

               The whole SV VC industry (and this site) start from a position that their business has a right to be profitable, so any law in the way of that is unjust.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.