Maybe, but I’m not going to be convinced until there is far more scientific rigour in the definition of addiction. Because right now, the colloquial use of addiction always comes with a strong component of social disapproval of the activity people are supposed to be addicted to.
For example, when I was a kid I read a lot. Often five or six books a week. I did it because I enjoyed it, but it was also an escape from the social anxieties of dealing with people my age. But everyone approves of reading. The idea of any kid seriously being called a “book addict” is laughable. Yet if a kid spent a similar number of hours playing computer games, or on social media, there would be people queuing up to call them addicts. The more social disapproval there is of an activity, the more likely that addiction is used as the explanation for why people enjoy it. I don’t trust the way the word is used in these contexts, or the hand-wavey pseudoscientific descriptions of how these addictions are supposed to work.
I frankly don’t care whether its considered addictive, a bit too rearranging deck chairs for my tastes when it’s helping destroy democracy. I’m still for melt the servers.
The problem I see is that even if you eradicated FB something else would take its place. People want social media. Some kind of government oversight seems more practical.
True, but scale is the problem, so if nothing else it’ll buy some time in between now and the next thing that gets created that needs melting.
Not opposed to regulation, just not holding my breath, but if someone was to take a shot at it my preference would be avoiding all the 1st amendment noise and just work to break them up.
Timex
4322
The problem you’re likely to have with regulation, is based on the type of stuff you guys actually want to regulate.
Ultimately, folks are suggesting that the reason Facebook needs to be regulated, is because it’s pushing wrongthink to people.
You’re not gonna be able to regulate that… it’s obviously going to run afoul of the first amendment.
Some folks then suggested limiting things based on how they were suggested, regardless of content, and while that would avoid first amendment problems, you then run into all the unintended consequences that JSnell pointed out.
I honestly think that you will have better luck with something like a corporate boycott, to get Facebook to change its behavior.
That does not seem to be equally obvious to everyone. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong. No one know until someone gives it a shot.
Timex
4324
Well, it’s obvious that if you tried to regulate the speech based on the specific content, that you’d be in violation of the first Amendment. I think we all agree on that, right?
Thrag
4325
This really is not people’s position. It’s a massive oversimplification. You are leaving out the part about profiting from knowingly spreading false information. Similar to false advertising which was brought up already.
That’s why the solution is to hamstring their ability to target harmful content to vulnerable people. Regulate the algorithms. Give people full transparency and control over their personal data.
Timex
4327
Again, it’s not illegal to profit from spreading false information. You are able to write a book and lie all you want, and sell that book. Laws that restrict commercial speech are extremely narrow, and only apply specifically to speech that proposes a commercial transaction.
The attempt to extend that to “any false speech that generates profit” is obviously not supported by the courts.
The problem we run into with this though, is that “regulate the algorithms” becomes a lot less clear once you actually try to think of a concrete regulatory scheme.
Some of the proposals made thus far in this thread sounded good at first, but then JSnell rightly pointed out why they wouldn’t actually work in practice.
Thrag
4328
In some cases, it is. Like false advertising laws. There also “illegal” and “can potentially face civil liability” among the tools in the legleslative box to use.
The attempt to extend that to “any false speech that generates profit” is obviously not supported by the courts.
Who do you insist on ignoring what people are actually saying to produce lines like this?
Rest easy guys, our problems are solved, they’re changing their name:
This should fix everything. I reposted because this puts my mind at ease. ;)
Timex
4330
Yes, civil liability is a limiting factor in speech, but that’s not the government regulating it. You are essentially leaving it up to another private party to seek damages against the liar.
You could actually do this already, against the people who generate the actual content.
But if you want to remove section 230 protections from the groups that allow publishing of that info, you’ll run into the issues that folks have already brought up.
Ok, you said, exactly, this:
The part you say here, about “profiting from knowingly spreading false information” is entirely immaterial. That is not a thing which is illegal. There is no exception of first amendment rights based on this. Speech does not lose its first amendment protection based on whether you profit from it. It also does not lose its first amendment protection because you deem it false, even if the person saying it knows it is false.
Timex
4331
Regarding Facebook, from that article above:
A possible name could have something to do with Horizon, the name of the still-unreleased VR version of Facebook-meets-Roblox that the company has been developing for the past few years. The name of that app was recently tweaked to Horizon Worlds shortly after Facebook demoed a version for workplace collaboration called Horizon Workrooms.
People have been trying to make this second life bullshit work for meetings for ages, and it always sucks balls.
Thrag
4332
My goal is not to relitigate issues, but to point out your oversimplification of people’s positions was false.
Timex
4333
You think it’s inaccurate that the fundamental reason why people are seeking to regulate facebook here, is the idea that it’s pushing information that they deem wrong to people?
I’m not seeing anyone produce a really clear definition of exactly what kind of information needs to be regulated.
It seemed that the critical component was that the information was wrong, and then the added element of “they were profiting from it”.
If someone says there could be a law against X, responding with there is no law against X is, well, irrelevant. There could be!
If advertisers can be civilly liable for making false claims, then someone else could be civilly liable for making false claims. If someone else can be civilly liable for making false claims, yet another someone else could be civilly liable for amplifying those false claims.
The fact that this is not so now is not an argument that it could not be so. There might be an argument that it could not be so — you suggested a constitutional one — but none of us know whether the constitution prohibits such a thing or doesn’t prohibit such a thing, and we won’t know that until someone crafts a law and passes the law and it ends up in front of a court.
Thrag
4335
If only we had some precedent, like some sort of laws regarding promoting information the promoter knows is factually false, to potentially use as a guide to craft solutions.
I mean don’t get me wrong, it’s a complex problem with a lot of simple and thus terribly thought out solutions that may present to people, like simply removing section 230. But that doesn’t mean any proposing that it gets some thought is someone purely motivated to silence “wrongthink”.
Timex
4336
You would not be able to make a law prohibiting speech on the basis of it being false. This has already been litigated in the courts, and the limitations on speech in this manner are extremely narrow and well defined.
This is not simply a case of “there is no law against X”, but rather, “The supreme court has said that you cannot have a law against X.”
There are tons of cases on the books that overturned laws that attempted to limit speech on the basis that it was false… There are even cases which prohibit seeking of civil damages against false speech.
As an example, we can look at something like US vs. Alvarez:
The stolen valor act made it illegal to claim that you’ve won medals or military awards. But this law was found unconstitutional by the 9th circuit, and then this finding was upheld by the SCOTUS. Generally, attempting to make false speech illegal is going to be considered unconstitutional, because it amounts to censoring speech based on its content, which is exactly what the first amendment is designed to prevent.
Yes, civil damages can sometimes be claimed by those directly harmed by false statements via defamation suits.
This is true, and this is what section 230 is designed to prevent in the case of internet publishers. So, what you are talking about here is stripping those protections in some subset of cases.
The problem that arises here, is that it does not seem clear how you would limit the section 230 protections in a way that did not have far reaching, unintended consequences, such as those laid out by JSnell previously.
