Yes. Dan Quayle invented them, I believe.
In '92, Usenet was used by the Clinton campaign to get the word out – in part because Gore understood and trusted the medium.
The Bush people did not think they needed it – and honestly I can’t say how much difference it made.
Yes, but only if we started.
Use your imagination…throw away the reflexive knob-slobbering afforded vets and see where that takes you. It’s sickening they overwhelmingly support Trump who openly mocks and humiliates true patriots. Get it now?
I claim no expertise on this subject, I haven’t joined FB and I never will, I participate lightly here and in one other unrelated forum. But it seems to me a strategy would be to abolish the whole system of “likes” and “recommends”. We post and then eagerly await social approval or opprobrium, but it ends up that both have the same effect, which is to amplify the content and place it in front of more users. But in real life I don’t wait around or go back later to see if people approve or disapprove of what I say, whatever feedback I get is there in the moment, rarely is there any followup, and for the most part I only care if I managed to piss someone off whom I care about, in which case I make amends. Everyone else can piss off. Policing particular speech is difficult, the purveyors of content should be always made to put real resources toward weeding out truly offensive and dangerous content, but those systems will never be sufficient to make more than a small dent in the problem. I think removing the mechanisms that amplify and broadcast the stuff that people react most strongly to would have a far greater effect. It seems like that amplification is FB’s entire operating principle, but since I refuse to use it, maybe I’m totally off the wall here.
Got a specific example for that? Because while the gov’t can’t limit speech, this might fall more under advertising restrictions and disclaimers, which they can certainly do to promote the general welfare and protect the populace from fraud and/or harmful ‘product’, just like there is certain content the FCC doesn’t allow broadcast on the public airwaves.
Public airwaves are treated differently – incorrectly, in my personal estimation, but nevertheless it’s established law – because the broadcast spectrum is “owned” by the public, not any private actors. Government can set broadly-applicable content rules because it owns the platform. And note that in the United States, television parental guideline ratings they are entirely voluntary and have no legal force. Social media could develop similar ratings for its users, but of course they have chosen not to.
Bottom line: The government does not own social media, so it doesn’t get to decide what can and cannot be published on it.
Advertising, which you and @paulw have both pointed to, has historically been treated with less protections under the First Amendment because it is considered “commercial speech.” But Supreme Court jurisprudence over the last several decades has granted more and more First Amendment protections to commercial speech. So you might be able to get some content-based regulations enacted on social media advertising without violating the First Amendment, but the government is not going to be able to just prohibit white supremacists from advertising for white supremacy. And the problem isn’t with Nazi ads anyway – it’s the user-generated Nazi content.
Cohen is calling out the various websites for being socially irresponsible. He’s not calling for regulations that don’t already exist in the publishing industry.
“Advocating for the websites to be held to standards similar to other large publishers, Cohen called for regulation and enforcement to stop extremist material from reaching millions of people”
Fan of Madam Secretary here(Madam President now).
Last episode dealt with something such as this. In THAT world, South Korea HAD a YouTube like platform, which HAD safeguards built into its algorithm. Téa Leoni's character HAD attempted to speak with social media king pins about the false items perpetuating on their platforms.
She was met with the argument of "we only provide the platform" - "free speech" - "etc, etc, etc. When her character signed a historic treaty with South Korea, she told the social platform owners about South Korea's platform and how THEY can limit such things with THEIR algorithm, how much they would lose $$$ for NOT adapting theirs.
BOOM! Only in a TV world do things fall into place in under an hour. BUT TV or NOT, these things CAN be accomplished. Social Media chooses NOT to do what is needed.or FB could simply refuse paid political ads
oh wait that would cost money
This is well worth the 25 minutes to watch it.
It is flatly nonsensical to claim that Cohen is not calling for government censorship in his speech. “Regulation and enforcement” are quintessential government activities.
He explicitly writes: “Here’s an idea. Instead of letting the Silicon Six decide the fate of the world, let our elected representatives, voted for by the people, of every democracy in the world, have at least some say.” That’s calling for government censorship.
“Nonsensical” seems a bit strong. At worst, I am in error.
Cohen says that he wants social media websites to adhere to the same standards that the rest of the publishing industry adheres to.
He explicitly writes: “Here’s an idea. Instead of letting the Silicon Six decide the fate of the world, let our elected representatives, voted for by the people, of every democracy in the world, have at least some say.” That’s calling for government censorship.
That’s a great quote. It’s also not in the article.
Don’t you think it’s a bit over-the-top to bring in quotes from other sources to imply that I’m making “nonsensical” points about this article? Surely we could reach the same conclusion in a less adversarial manner.
The way I would go about this kind of reply is “Cohen also has said…” (proper citation, including source) “Does that affect your thinking on this issue?”
Cohen’s written speech is linked in the article. Go read those remarks. In their entirety, it is very clear that he is advocating for some vague kind of content-based censorship by the government.
THIS! Albeit, I’m biased - I don’t get social media at all, I tried Facebook and Twitter and found them to be the most inane waste of time - so I’m already unplugged. But I just don’t get what people see in these “media.” Just cancel your account. You will still find out all the information you need, and you will still remain in touch with all the people you need to be in touch with.
These companies are publishers, and as such they should be responsible for the views hosted on their sites. It is their ability to be irresponsible/hands-off combined with anonymity/lack of ownership of the statements they host that is escalating the level of extremity.
Take it up with the Communications Decency Act, which ensures that online platforms are not responsible for user-posted material. Without it, social media and online comments probably wouldn’t exist in any meaningful form. YMMV on whether that would be a good thing.
But in any event, “views” are just opinions, and opinions are not actionable in American defamation law. People can legally extol the virtues of National Socialism all day, every day without ever needing to worry that they will suffer any legal consequences for it (unless they’re stupid enough to incite imminent violence).
This is true, but that doesn’t mean that FB etc have the right to profit from others’ views without legal consequences. That’s where I’m thinking things like the disclaimers mandated in advertising kick in, and could be applicable here. It doesn’t prevent access, after all. So, yeah, the CDA probably has to go, or at least be modified so that online platforms aren’t responsible if they’re taking steps to adequately protect the public from people attempting to incite intolerance and violence.
What kind of disclaimers? If they’re globally applicable, something like “This is a paid advertisement sponsored by [fill in the blank],” then you have no First Amendment problem. If the disclaimers only apply to certain types of disfavored speech – e.g., “The FCC would like to inform you that this advertisement promotes racist ideology” – then it would not be permitted under the First Amendment.
If you say so. (Assuming, of course, that you get to define the issue. I think you’re begging the question.)
I say so, and you are ipso facto wrong. Also, please learn what “begging the question” actually means.
today you win the internet