Instead its just being a good samaritan at an institutional level. Should that be taken as a sign the mall operator can aid shoppers in medical distress and therefore be held to the same obligations as a fire department and respond to every type of emergency? No that's ridiculous. IMO the correct way to treat a social media platform which has a large, borderline monopolistic market share is to not allow them to subjectively censor or curate safe and legal material on the basis of their owner's political views or business interests alone, but at the same time explicitly allow them to voluntarily review and take down material which represents a threat to public safety or degrades the experience of their users.Ĭonsider the example of a shopping mall that trains their workers in CPR and installs defribillator machines. At the same time they should be expected to act in a timely manner to reported abuse because that has a real impact on public safety. Also a general obligation to review 100% of content before it is shared would destroy the entire business model and unfairly burden lawful online activities. The way I see it, social media sites should not be held directly liable for absolutely everything like a publisher because a user is more like a customer and not a journalist. Also unlike phone call that would have to be tapped, everyone can see a public post and thus if that post is law-breaking or represents a threat to public safety then why can't the platform act on it? ![]() On a social media platform, one user's behavior can have negative impacts on other users. A social media site allows for public sharing, a one-to-many form of communication. It is not feasible for social media platforms to review every single post to that degree, because AI is incapable of understanding nuance.Ī mere conduit like a phone company would be mostly facilitating point-to-point private calls between individuals. If there was an instance of slander or libel or copyright infringement, the publisher would be responsible since they knew it was happening. It doesn't pay its users to create something to sell, the users are the product. Social media's business model doesn't intend to commit to that degree of curation. It's a new form of communication that deserves to be treated fairly for what it is.Ī publisher or news outlet would have editors carefully reading every single submission, making deliberate choices about what goes to print. You can't neatly categorize social media as either a publisher or a mere conduit. Submit news article (no analysis/opinion) If your post is not a good fit for /r/news, consider submitting to one of these subreddits instead: ![]() advocates or celebrates the death of another person.Įxtreme or repeat offenders will be banned.is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.Your comment will likely be removed if it: violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.has a title that does not match the actual title or the lede. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |