After the violent events at the US Capitol the question isn’t how monopolist social media platforms should wield their power - the question is whether they should have such power in the first place.
We should break down the walls of social media monopolists, regulate them, and make monetising toxic engagement spilling into public discourse as onerous as dumping toxic waste into a river.
And a shout-out to @Argus , whose fantastic talk "Decentralized Social Networks vs. The Trolls" was a crucial piece of the puzzle really tied the post together.
Seriously, watch that talk:
@djsumdog my main problem with your Section 230 post is that it still feels like a post set in the "social media is both media and the infrastructure" kind of thinking.
We really need to split these two apart, and until we do, we will not be able to have a way forward, because infrastructure related examples (AT&T, etc) will directly oppose any accountability ideas.
and I do think social media should be allowed to editorialize, as long as it's on an open protocol. I do not see why a blog can't be a part of a social media network. Can it?
If it can, can *my* blog be a part of a social media network?
If it can, can I editorialize on my own blog?
I feel I should be allowed to do that. And thus, social media instances should, too. The reason we feel this is problematic is because how big, walled off, and monopolistic Fb and are.
@djsumdog ah, but if a Mastodon or Pleroma instance started doing that, people would go somewhere else, because they can in an open network like the Fediverse.
That's my point. You don't need that kind of an explicit ban if you make sure the network is open and users can move about and choose their own adventure.
What gives fedi.example.org to be the arbiter of truth on their instance? The same thing that gives me that power on (say) instance.rys.io, for example. Why take that away from me?
@wolfie @allison @djsumdog "distorted view" is not a "walled garden". Everyone's view is distorted. But I have the option of creating other accounts in other fractured parts of that network - and that's something I do not have on centralized social media.
I choose not to do so because I *don't want* to deal with fascists on an everyday basis. Another thing I have no say over on centralized walled gardens.
@djsumdog I don't think it does, really. And even if, I prefer these bubbles (where I *can* have accounts in different bubbles) to a centralized network where anything goes and I am exposed constantly to right-wing harassment and lies.
It is, to some extent, about bringing some friction to how news (be it real or fake) spreads, and making it harder for viral alt-right content to be put in front of more eyeballs, without having a central authority impose such rules explicitly.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!