I bet you think this reply was sharp-minded and on spot and something else.
Comment on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sues Meta, citing chatbot’s reply as evidence of shadowban
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 months agoShadowbans should just be illegal as a thing
I bet you scream about your first amendment rights being violated whenever a moderator deletes your posts.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 4 months ago
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 months ago
How much would you like to bet? I accept PayPal.
Buttons@programming.dev 4 months ago
A problem is that social media websites are simultaneously open platforms with Section 230 protections, and also publishers who have free speech rights. Those are contradictory, so which is it?
Perhaps @rottingleaf was speaking morally rather than legally. For example, I might say “I believe everyone in America should have access to healthcare”; if you respond “no, there is no right to healthcare” you would be right, but you missed my point. I was expressing an moral aspiration.
I think shadowbans are a bad mix of censorship and hard to detect. Morally, I believe they should be illegal. If a company wants to ban someone, they can be up front about someone and ban them; make it clear what you are doing. To implement this legally, we could alter Section 230 protections so that they don’t apply to companies performing shadowbans.
Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 months ago
They are in no way publishers…ugh you people who don’t know shit about the law are insufferable.
QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Feel free to educate us instead of just saying the equivalent of “you’re wrong and I hate reading comments like yours”.
But I think, in general, the alteration to Section 230 that they are proposing makes sense as a way to keep these companies in check for practices like shadowbanning especially if those tools are abused for political purposes.