Social Media Double-Think
January 30, 2021
By NZB3
Guest Post:
If a platform is truly content neutral, then we should see the individual users as 100% responsible for whatever they do on it. On the other hand, if a social network selectively chooses what is or isn’t OK, then that’s what should open the door to considering them complicit in said content.Facebook is being praised here for taking editorial positions that help Cancel Culture along, while simultaneously defended against liability on the grounds that it is a platform… Whereas Parler – which actually acts as a content neutral platform and doesn’t impose editorial control as a company on what users say – is expressly being held as if it should be liable for what people say!?
This is double think.
An Anarchist Solution
A movie might get one rating in Australia and another one in the USA and a different one in China. There are many different agencies rating content.
If Facebook (or Twitter) want a way out of the rating game they ought to create plugins so that each of us can subscribe to our preferred rating agency. And a multiplicity of competing rating agencies can emerge.
Some of these would be community groups, some would be private firms, and some no doubt would be government agencies. I’d oppose the latter but not the previous two. And I’d totally oppose any one of them being mandated though I can see a default being in place and such organisations would likely be regulated.
It’s not a perfect solution, but it is far better than the current scenario
Also sensitive SJW snowflakes could choose only to see content verified by the ratings agency they are themselves subscribed to and ignore the rest on that platform.
Like Comment Share
