Social media posts inciting hate and division have “real world consequences” and there is a responsibility to regulate content, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, insisted on Friday, following Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking programme in the United States.
  • brown567@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    73·
    14 hours ago

    I feel like it is still censorship, but a degree of censorship required for public safety is tolerable…

    Unless he’s saying that social media sites policing content on their platform isn’t censorship, because it’s not. It’s only censorship if it’s a government doing it, you have the right to control what is said on a platform you own

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldEnglish
      152·
      14 hours ago

      It’s only censorship if it’s a government doing it

      The amount of public space, both real and virtual, is decreasing dramatically. I think limits on private censorship should definitely exist.

      • Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        3·
        11 hours ago

        Alright, so just for example let’s say I spin up a Lemmy instance on my computer and allow other people to make accounts on it. Why should the state be able to require me to store anything I don’t want on my PC?

        Or do these limits only kick in for platforms above a certain size? And in that case, why would the same principle not apply?

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          34 minutes ago

          If I make sandwiches and people decide to eat my sandwiches then why should the government require me to follow basic health and safety.

          Service offered to the general public should expect to be regulated.

        • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
          4·
          10 hours ago

          Or do these limits only kick in for platforms above a certain size?

          That’s how it’s in the EU, the DSA only applies to large providers. It’s kinda like the fairness doctrine in broadcasting but in the digital domain, e.g. TikTok is currently in hot waters over the Romania elections because they did not take sufficient precautions to make sure that everything’s fair and square.

          And in that case, why would the same principle not apply?

          Because size obliges. If I want to smelt some cans in my backyard I can just do that provided I have a “fireplace” – which is just an area set up to be suitable to have a fire. If I want to build an industrial-scale aluminium smelter I have to get permits and everything. The public interest in the latter is much larger, that’s why I have to jump through hoops and follow regulations.

          (I can’t burn garden waste though, gotta give it to the municipality to compost. A matter of waste of perfectly fine organic material and unnecessary emissions).