You really have to walk a censorship tight rope as a social media. You need to remove content that targets minorities and hate speech or face consequence, but only when it applies to the bottom 99% of society - apparently.
The fact that the EU seems to want control over who gets to express themselves freely, is even more troubling than the inconsistent rules applies by the media themselves.
I've run a niche "social media" site for 12 years. There is no tightrope. The problem is that these large platforms want the benefits of scale, without being responsible for dealing with the problems of scale. It is imminently possible to build a thriving social media site that enforces standards of behavior. HN is a good example. However, it is work to actually enforce those standards. It takes leadership. Facebook, Twitter, etc, are not interested in providing that type of leadership, and would likely require both a huge economic investment, and a significant change in business strategy.
Exactly this. They want both control, and ability to wash their hands, while running their operations at scale. There is the famous saying, "time, quality and cost, choose two". There is a similar "social media law" I believe, that is yet to be stated, but where scale is one parameter.
The point is who gets to decide the standards of behavior?
There are tons of laws restricting what standards can be. Fair housing act. Education, phone service are examples of things that can’t be arbitrarily denied because people providing disagree with who you are, what you belief, or what you do (excepting illegal activity).
Many argue the Internet and some of these services should be added to that list.
Exactly this. The problem lies in the power to control expression lying in too few hands. Just having the same media system, but with the government directing who they ban is just passing the buck.
I've been wondering how much of all this is an (over?)reaction to the threat of the repeal of section 230. How many of the people making these decisions have reciently had meetings with legal where they learn what changes they would need to make to not risk lawsuits. Allowing governmental oversight, with legal protection, would sound pretty good in comparison.
Suddenly it is very easy for the powers that be to see the threat these platforms pose. Deplatform little people? Fine with us. Deplatform a head of state? Can't have that!
Facebook, Twitter, et al are going to regret the pandora's box of unintended consequences they just opened up with this move.
Frankly, facebook, twitter et al. really didn't have much choice. They've been as tolerant as they can be.
It was parler that screwed things up. It was meant to be a right wing equivalent to the left wing social media companies (who, coincidentally, are incredibly anti-union, anti-corporate tax, and anti-workers right, or as was previously known incredibly right wing). Instead they produced a platform that was rampant with death threats, resulting in the only (overtly) right wing platform collapsing.
The fact that the EU seems to want control over who gets to express themselves freely, is even more troubling than the inconsistent rules applies by the media themselves.