Support NeoGAF

[hariseldon]

We have a problem, and I propose a solution. Mass communication has become centralised. Twitter and Facebook can largely decide what is and is not news, and in recent weeks the mask has fully come off - they are making those decisions in a partisan and dangerous way to influence an election. The solution proposed has been to repeal section 230 (ie make them legally responsible for what they carry) - for a while I considered that to be the correct approach, but the more I consider it, the more I realise that all that would do is cement their position and prevent upstarts from competing with them, as well as increasing censorship. The solution needs to be different, taking inspiration from, of all things, rail privatisation.

I propose breaking Twitter and Facebook each into two parts. I'll use Twitter for my explanation but the same will apply to Facebook. There is probably a decent argument to do the same with Google. So for Twitter, what I would do is look to decentralise it by having one company (we'll call it Twitter Pipe) that provides APIs (effectively means for developers to connect to Twitter and extract data such as tweets, profiles, etc, and also to post data (eg tweets, retweets, likes, etc). The pipe should be accessible for a fee, based on the actual cost of providing that data. The pipe should be heavily regulated such that it is not allowed to censor any content that is not illegal (ie delete child porn, don't delete people being a bit angry or having the wrong political opinion - it should be something close to America's first amendment). Twitter Pipe should not be allowed to modify the order of content, or the contents, for any commercial gain. That means no adverts, no curation of trends, etc. It should raise revenue solely from charging for its feeds.

The second company should be Twitter Front. This is the user interface that people interact with. It should connect to Twitter Pipe. It can do what it likes with that content. Adverts, censorship, whatever it chooses. However, with Twitter Pipe open to other companies, you should expect to see competition to provide the best service using that data. Different services will emerge which will serve different niches. Some will be free, where you are the product, as per the current status quo. Some will charge, and you are no longer the product. The public will be free to make a choice.

Internet communications work best as open protocols accessible to all rather than closed privatised monopolies. Email would never have taken off as it did, nor developed such a vibrant ecosystem, had it been developed as a monopolised private platform. De-monopolising Twitter and Facebook would drive a massive wave of innovation in that space.

 

[notseqi]

In 2013 I went back to IRC to have meaningful conversations and discussion of news.
I would love for everybody to turn away from social media which has become anything but social - we're too far along though.
With their control over the platform and patchy regulations at best they have become a political tool and it's doing for politicians what they alone could not achieve legally - money sways public discourse to uncomfortable levels.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I agree.

I was thinking about Google the other day and how can you have a search engine that compete with a household name? Well, i think 'Google' should stay a search engine, except Google means everything. You type your search in to the 'google' bar, as you do now, but the next page is a wall of tiles of different company logos. You click on the Logo you want, and that company runs your search.

Alphabet still take a little cut for every search that happens on 'Google', though the actual 'Google' search engine is publicly owned or whatever

 

[Bunker Hosted]

I have to disagree with this, as much as I hate how utterly massive that Facebook, Twitter, etc has become. It is not their job to censor content, or be held responsible for content that gets posted on their platforms.

People who sign up to use these services agree to the terms and conditions, and if these are broken, Facebook or twitter should be at fault? People should be responsible for what they say/post online. Unless the content is clearly illegal, or just straight targeting groups or individuals it should be left alone.

It shouldn't be any companies job to censor, remove, or block content posted to their platforms just because they don't agree with it (or that other people are complaining to them, because they don't agree with it) That is the literal basis for free-speech. Just because you disagree with what someone posted, doesn't mean you need to try and blame Russian disinformation or hate speech.

This is a VERY slippery slope but I don't think Facebook, twitter or any other social media platform should be held responsible for what others post.

LET PEOPLE BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY SAY ONLINE (but also don't ever remove anon posting, hehe)

 

[hariseldon]

I have to disagree with this, as much as I hate how utterly massive that Facebook, Twitter, etc has become. It is not their job to censor content, or be held responsible for content that gets posted on their platforms.

People who sign up to use these services agree to the terms and conditions, and if these are broken, Facebook or twitter should be at fault? People should be responsible for what they say/post online. Unless the content is clearly illegal, or just straight targeting groups or individuals it should be left alone.

It shouldn't be any companies job to censor, remove, or block content posted to their platforms just because they don't agree with it (or that other people are complaining to them, because they don't agree with it) That is the literal basis for free-speech. Just because you disagree with what someone posted, doesn't mean you need to try and blame Russian disinformation or hate speech.

This is a VERY slippery slope but I don't think Facebook, twitter or any other social media platform should be held responsible for what others post.

LET PEOPLE BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY SAY ONLINE (but also don't ever remove anon posting, hehe)

I'm puzzled by your position, in that I can't quite figure out what it is. Terms and conditions should never override law, and when a company is in a position of effective monopoly and applies those terms and conditions capriciously it can cause no end of problems. If Twitter sets a rule that anyone with a D in their name must be banned, but then only bans Donald Trump but doesn't ban Joe BiDen, then they have capriciously applied their terms and conditions - they can hide behind 'we are applying policy' but the truth is that by selective implementation of the policy they have breached the trust of a pure carrier for which section 230 exists.

For my solution, the pipe effectively has no terms and conditions, only law, and the terms and conditions are moved up the stack, so Twitter Front can have theirs, Bob's Tweets can have a different set, and so on, allowing customers to shop around and choose an environment that suits them. And to avoid unpersoning, there should be a service of last resort, which provides a front end to the unfiltered pipe.

I'm specifically saying this will STOP Section 230, so you have perhaps misread my intent. I agree that there is some risk in holding them responsible for what is posted, which is why the alternative of having different companies compete to provide better service to the user based on that pipe of data. It's the only option that exists which can hope to end unpersoning while maintaining that Section 230 protection. Twitter Pipe becomes a mere carrier, like the mail or the phones, as Section 230 was intended to cover, and then the front end services accessing that pipe become conduits to that carrier, in genuine competition at last.