logoalt Hacker News

ericmayyesterday at 9:15 PM1 replyview on HN

I think we should just ban social media companies. If you want to create a small community walk outside and create one with your neighbors.

> and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.

On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c.

It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems.

I am also not "going off into the weeds" because I'm just responding to the OP.


Replies

mindslightyesterday at 9:27 PM

> I think we should just ban social media companies.

Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. Not in that I want to see it reversed so the fascists currently in power can use the dynamic as a club to go after speech they don't like. But rather that I think the Internet would have developed healthier without it, and what it has enabled.

> On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c.

You seem to be pigeonholing all of the problems into one bag. "Hatred" does not go away with real-name policies.

> It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems.

No, I am pointing out that you're approaching this from the wrong angle. The core dynamic of the Internet has always been "don't trust what you read on the Internet". The lack of needing permission to communicate is precisely what has enabled so much innovation. Defining context is the responsibility of higher layers.

What changed from that core dynamic? The social media companies showed up, took unvetted and unfiltered streams of content, and presented them to the public as trustworthy finished products. "We'll figure out a better system than naive voting later". Well later never came, did it? At least Slashdot tried.

Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right?

show 1 reply