Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Miller" data-source="post: 67457" data-attributes="member: 5063">Really interesting thoughts Dheepa! I find the general discussion of "privatised censorship" very interesting. Social media platforms (as long as I've used them anyway, so about a decade now?) have always had controls in place, to a greater or lesser degree, to have certain hateful content removed. This is, of course, absolutely necessary and should absolutely be made a priority so that everyone can feel safe when using these platforms.I would tend to say, though, that in the last couple of years we've begun to see a real blurring of lines and a definite agenda appear to what Big Tech will and won't take it upon themselves to censor. I'll also say from the outset that I'm not attaching a moral value/ this-is-right-and-this-is-wrong type judgement either way. I noticed this first a few years ago now when I used to do re-enactment as a hobby (nerdy, I know). Facebook started clamping down massively on the selling of certain re-enactment equipment (i.e., anything that looked vaguely militaristic) - it was also around the same time that Apple replaced the 'gun' emoji with a water pistol one. While this is quite a particular couple of examples, and I can also understand the reasons that FB etc started interrupting these sales posts (especially in the wake of a few terrible shootings in the States), it did display a definite political agenda which has, arguably, been extended in the last couple of years into politics more generally. Whether you agree or disagree with either the content which Big Tech is censoring, or whether they should be censoring it in the first place, the on-going discussion, in my opinion, has to surround whether private organisations should be allowed to essentially be the Alamo for what end users are and aren't allowed to see. Relating this to what Jaysen mentioned about competition issues, I think it will be extremely interesting in the months and years to come whether we will begin to see a string of competition-related claims brought against Big Tech providers for news-sharing/ endorsing practices. From a legal practicality standpoint, I am personally concerned about the peicemeal - even arbitrary - approach that governments and supranational states (EU) are taking to Big Tech regulation. In some ways, it's probably the single biggest example of traditional, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction law as a mechanism for regulating behaviour being at odds with the modern world: social media is built on the fundamental idea of connecting the world, but countries with different laws imposing different obligations on providers is the antithesis of this! I would be surprised if a multinational/ worldwide convention for big tech regulation became the focal point of discussion in the next 5-10 years - though this would evidently create another new layer of complexity in its creation and enforcement!</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread