Don’t expect everyone to agree on standards
“How should social media content be controlled?” ranks right up there with “When is abortion appropriate?” and “When is speech hateful?” and “Who is the greatest athlete of all time?” in its subjectivity, complexity and nuance. The most brilliant minds disagree.
As an economic platform, Walmart chooses which products to sell and which to discontinue, how to price and how to merchandise. It is an independent company and thus is allowed to make these decisions itself. On occasion, Walmart may feel pressure from outside interests to halt sales of controversial products such as guns.
As a news and information platform, The San Diego Union-Tribune has the luxury of not having to publish every or any letter it receives. This is not censorship. The First Amendment does not apply to private companies.
As a public service “platform,” a city sidewalk has intended uses (safe walking) that the city allows pretty much unfettered. It is also used for myriad other uses such as soapboxing, which cities freely allow — until it interferes with the intended use. You can soapbox until your volume or audience size becomes a hazard. There are limits. The city determines where the limits are.
Social media platforms provide soapbox opportunities; joyful, informative, political, silly and deadly serious. Unlike Walmart, social media content is contributed without prejudice or conditions or agreement. Until it needs to be — just like the sidewalk. Ideally social media companies have thought things through and have established policies to control what is placed on their platforms. You can’t always know everything upfront so policies need to be rigorously updated and displayed. Rigid adherence to their policies is critical so as not to appear to show favorites. But here is where things get dicey.
Everything can be placed on a spectrum. There is a spectrum of hate speech, of violence incitement, of bullying and of pornography. Where are the lines to the left of which all is good but to the right of which all is forbidden? The “marketplace” has a say.
Interestingly, as seems to be the case with Twitter, employees had a say in shutting down President Donald Trump’s account. Other media outlets have a say. In high-profile cases like with Trump the blend of input was considered and a decision made. But Facebook, et al., can’t do that times a million. Artificial intelligence tools need to be developed. As is done now, human screeners need to have clear direction and authority to close down sites. When, not if, sites or accounts are closed inappropriately, a litigation process needs to exist. This task is super gnarly and will never be accepted by everyone. Social media will sometimes get it right, and sometimes it won’t. But the companies must control it, somehow. Even a simple sidewalk needs to be controlled.
Paul Jester, Poway
Where the line gets drawn is big concern
Where to draw the line on social media and who should draw it?
I am reminded of Potter Stewart’s statement about pornography. He wrote that he couldn’t define pornography then added, “But I know it when I see it.”
It is the same with all our freedoms, such as freedom of speech and religion. We can all agree lines need to be drawn, but we can’t agree about where and who should draw the lines.
Maybe the solution to this dilemma is in our education system. Create intelligent, decent people, and they will self-regulate. As the saying goes, “If you desire a better world, make better people and start with yourself.”
We have a lot of citizens who just don’t get it. They don’t understand truth, reality, democracy, civics and manners. All behavior needs to be filtered. But we have had four years of a president without a filter.
None of these questions about drawing a line is easy. When is friendliness sexual abuse? We wouldn’t need to attempt the difficult task of writing rules and regulations to set limits if people would behave themselves.
Charlie Ballbach, Santee
Tech firms should not have so much power
Re “Trump’s social media ban raises a question — what are the rules and who enforces them?” (Jan. 15): Thanks for your editorial spotlighting tech censorship, which reached a crescendo recently when Apple, Google and Amazon destroyed Parler, a social media service.
In the past, tech censorship complainers were told that if they didn’t like it, they should create their own company. They did. They formed Parler, gained a huge and devoted following, and now the CEO and his family are in hiding from death threats.
Before the election, Big Tech (and, shamefully, many in the press) closed off any discussion of Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Once the Biden administration rolls out its climate plan, get ready for Big Tech to restrict climate discussions.
Tech’s opaque, shifting standards and disregard of privacy have upset both Republicans and Democrats, so there is hope for legislative action at both the federal and state levels.
Jim Austin, Encinitas
Our government must play some kind of role
We champion life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But absolute freedom of speech or action can’t be condoned if we’re to maintain a workable society. The cautionary “the right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins” applies.
English poet John Donne summed it up almost 400 years ago: “No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” Put simply: We’re in this together so we have to find a way to get along.
Determining what is or isn’t protected free speech comes down to the difference between discretionary and dangerous. Homeowners associations impose regulations on junk vehicles, yard signs and barbecue grills.
On the other hand, government — from direct evidence or potential peril — limits smokestack emissions, regulates what goes into medicines and requires child seats in vehicles.
As the U-T editorial pointed out, social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter have not handled free-speech regulation well. If they really have policies at all, they have not been applied evenly. User complaints about harassment and threats are legion.
Since the track records of the social media platforms don’t sparkle, it will require a government agency to set limits and maintain order. Prohibiting threats of violence or mayhem is a no-brainer.
But a blanket policy won’t work. What is free speech to some is repression to others. Social media platforms must establish firm guidelines on what they will post and hold to them.
By way of example, take store policies on returning merchandise.
We may quibble with them but we have to recognize their right to do so.
Individuals or groups that don’t police themselves strengthen the case for an independent authority to take charge.
In order to avoid draconian measures, let’s watch out for the common good.
Again John Donne: “Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.”
Dale Rodebaugh, Kensington
"control" - Google News
January 23, 2021 at 09:20PM
https://ift.tt/2LR9Sye
Opinion: Your Say on who should control social media - The San Diego Union-Tribune
"control" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3bY2j0m
https://ift.tt/2KQD83I
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Opinion: Your Say on who should control social media - The San Diego Union-Tribune"
Post a Comment