The wrongful death lawsuit against several social media companies for allegedly contributing to the radicalization of a gunman who killed 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, will be allowed to proceed.
That means that the government is injecting itself on deciding what “extremist” is. I do not trust them to do that wisely. And even if I did trust them, it is immoral for the state to start categorizing and policing ideologies.
Ur missing the point violence should absolutly be policed. Words ideas ideology hell no let isis, ms13, the communists, the nazis, the vegans etc etc etc say what they want. They are all extremists by some definition let them discuss let them argue and the second someone does something violent lock em for the rest of their lives simple.
What you are suggesting is the policing of ideology to prevent future crime their is an entire book about where that leads to said book simply calls this concept thought crime.
That is generally what Governments do. They write laws that say … you can do this but not that. If you do this thats illegal and you will be convicted. Otherwise you wouldnt be able to police things like Mafia and drug cartels. Even in the US their freedom of speech to conspire to committe crimes is criminalised. There is no difference between that and politically motivated ‘extremists’ who conspire to commit crimes. The idealogy is not criminalised the acts that groups plan or conduct are. You are totally fine saying . I dont like x group.
What its not ok to say is . Lets go out and kill people from x.group.
The problem is that social media sites use automated processes to decide which messages to put in front of users in the fundamentally same way that a newspaper publisher decides which letters to the editor they decide to put in their newspaper.
Somehow though Tech companies have argued that because their is no limit on how many posts they can communicate amd hence theoretically they arent deciding what they put in and what they done, that their act of putting some at the top of people’s lists so they are seen is somehow different to the act of the newspaper publisher including a particular letter or not …but the outcome is the same The letter or post is seen by people or not.
Tech companies argue they are just a commutation network but I never saw a telephone, postal or other network that decided which order you got your phone calls, letters or sms messages. They just deliver what is sent in the order it was sen.
commercial social media networks are publishers with editorial control - editorial control is not only inclusion/exclusion but also prominence
There is a fundamental difference in Lemmy or Mastodon in that those decisions (except for any moderation by individual server admins) dont promote or demote any post so therefore dont have any role in whether a user sees a post or not.
The government is already the one who makes that decision. The only thing new here is a line being drawn with regards to social media’s push towards addiction and echo-chamberism.
it is immoral for the state to start categorizing and policing ideologies.
Actually, any and all actions to disrupt, depower, and deplatform, fascist ideologies are just and good, be they undertaken by state or non-state groups.
Fascism is an act of violence. Shutting it down is more than moral good a moral duty.
You stop people organizing genocides (including their constituent mass shootings as here) just as you would stop a wanker wailing around a wallet chain in a waitng room.
umm… isnt the government or rather the judikative already deciding what extremist is?
How would specifically this be different?
I can understand the problems thos causes for the platforms, but the government injecting decisions is something you focus on?
Not to forget the many other places they inject themselves… one could say your daily lifes because… careful now… you live in the country with a government, whaaat?
That means that the government is injecting itself on deciding what “extremist” is. I do not trust them to do that wisely. And even if I did trust them, it is immoral for the state to start categorizing and policing ideologies.
Do you understand you’re arguing for violent groups instigating a race war?
Like, even if you’re ok with white people doing it, you’re also saying ISIS, MS13, any fucking group can’t be labeled violent extremists…
Some “ideologies” need to be fucking policed
Removed by mod
Ur missing the point violence should absolutly be policed. Words ideas ideology hell no let isis, ms13, the communists, the nazis, the vegans etc etc etc say what they want. They are all extremists by some definition let them discuss let them argue and the second someone does something violent lock em for the rest of their lives simple.
What you are suggesting is the policing of ideology to prevent future crime their is an entire book about where that leads to said book simply calls this concept thought crime.
Someone wants to start with yours, and they have more support than you know. Be careful what you wish for.
Guess we shouldn’t ever do anything about anything, ever.
Big difference between policing actions and policing thoughts. Declaring some thoughts as verboten and subject to punishment or liability is bad.
The action is organizing genocide. Societies should stop that.
It’s insane you’re being downvoted by people who would be the first ones silenced.
You really think they’re going to use this for himophobes and racists instead of anyone calling for positive socia6 change?
Did you not see any of history?
That is generally what Governments do. They write laws that say … you can do this but not that. If you do this thats illegal and you will be convicted. Otherwise you wouldnt be able to police things like Mafia and drug cartels. Even in the US their freedom of speech to conspire to committe crimes is criminalised. There is no difference between that and politically motivated ‘extremists’ who conspire to commit crimes. The idealogy is not criminalised the acts that groups plan or conduct are. You are totally fine saying . I dont like x group.
What its not ok to say is . Lets go out and kill people from x.group.
The problem is that social media sites use automated processes to decide which messages to put in front of users in the fundamentally same way that a newspaper publisher decides which letters to the editor they decide to put in their newspaper.
Somehow though Tech companies have argued that because their is no limit on how many posts they can communicate amd hence theoretically they arent deciding what they put in and what they done, that their act of putting some at the top of people’s lists so they are seen is somehow different to the act of the newspaper publisher including a particular letter or not …but the outcome is the same The letter or post is seen by people or not.
Tech companies argue they are just a commutation network but I never saw a telephone, postal or other network that decided which order you got your phone calls, letters or sms messages. They just deliver what is sent in the order it was sen.
commercial social media networks are publishers with editorial control - editorial control is not only inclusion/exclusion but also prominence
There is a fundamental difference in Lemmy or Mastodon in that those decisions (except for any moderation by individual server admins) dont promote or demote any post so therefore dont have any role in whether a user sees a post or not.
The government is already the one who makes that decision. The only thing new here is a line being drawn with regards to social media’s push towards addiction and echo-chamberism.
Actually, any and all actions to disrupt, depower, and deplatform, fascist ideologies are just and good, be they undertaken by state or non-state groups.
Fascism is an act of violence. Shutting it down is more than moral good a moral duty.
You stop people organizing genocides (including their constituent mass shootings as here) just as you would stop a wanker wailing around a wallet chain in a waitng room.
umm… isnt the government or rather the judikative already deciding what extremist is?
How would specifically this be different?
I can understand the problems thos causes for the platforms, but the government injecting decisions is something you focus on?
Not to forget the many other places they inject themselves… one could say your daily lifes because… careful now… you live in the country with a government, whaaat?