top | item 37443479

(no title)

Pyramus | 2 years ago

So you agree that social networks need moderation, but you disagree that there should be a law that says social networks need moderation?

discuss

order

jiofj|2 years ago

Of course.

I've seen this argument so many times. I like something, so we have to make a law to force it to exist. Or, I don't like something, so we have to make a law to make it illegal.

Unless there is a monopoly, and social networks certainly aren't one, there's no reason to force them to do anything.

Pyramus|2 years ago

> there's no reason to force them to do anything.

So why are we forcing social networks to do a lot of things already today: We force them to remove illegal content, remove content that is not suited for minors, moderate content that is traumatic, protect people's privacy etc?

I don't really understand? Is your point that we should not be doing this as well? Is your fear that the state of California will moderate Twitter?

keiferski|2 years ago

Not the person you’re replying to, but: Is this supposed to be some kind of contradiction? There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.

Pyramus|2 years ago

No, I'm trying to understand what OP's position is?

> There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.

Can you give some examples? I can't think of a single social network that is not moderated, even 4Chan is to some extent. Maybe on the darknet? But even then moderation exists I assume.

So it seems clear to me that there should be some minimum standard in moderation, which should be enforceable.

It's kind of ironic that we discuss this on a heavily moderated platform, which is both moderated by a centralised authority as well as the users themselves.