That is the entire debate. There ought to be as the internet is a utility and social media companies enjoy special privileges not available to normal media outlets but they act as if they are a normal media outlet and abuse the special privileges.
I’ve said it many times here. They can’t have it both ways.
Well, twice in two days, we agree on something.
And let me elucidate it from my point of view. A social media platform should adhere to the same laws re: libel/defamation/indecency as print media and broadcast media.
With traditional media there was a process in place where consumers didn’t have access to raw news. Established media would get more then one source, get a quote from someone with expertise in that area and so forth.
That model has problems of course, bias etc. It was said that what was reported reflected so-called “elite consensus”
So I don’t know about this:
to destroy platforms for being distasteful (as opposed to breaking the law)
If a group can be feed false information that can convince them they need to kill their neighbors that’s a problem. That’s more then just “distasteful”
That would be illegal. However, social media companies are deleting accounts for political opinions, or for no discernible reason which are nowhere near advocating to ‘kill’ people.
Strangely Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seems to have aTwitter account and he advocates “Death to America” … and he means it. Not a problem apparently.
Twitter also faces ridicule after it resisted demands by the Indian government to suspend accounts for spreading “misinformation,” claiming that it cherished “free expression,” despite having removed multiple prominent accounts in the U.S. for “spreading misinformation.”
On a side note, I see where he is blackmailing the West again. . . or at least Iran is. . . .
My point is that the way social media enforces their terms of service in political manner can be explained in the same way the traditional media works, that is they follow so-called elite consensus. So nothing new there.
In response, Facebook removed accounts owned by the Myanmar Armed Forces for inciting hatred against the Rohingya people
A little too late.
Social media platforms aren’t newspapers. Major media houses are presumed to be (somewhat) reliable due to their position. The same can’t be said for 4chan. I think most consumers of social media relate to what’s being said as utterances of individuals, and thus it stands to reason that they should be regulated as such.
I’m talking about the distasteful but legal stuff, not illegal activities such as you describe. Those are best addressed by the legal system acting against the individuals concerned rather than their forum of expression, perhaps not most effectively, but most justly.
I think these problems are more severe with a small and tightly knit elite, and the field is rapidly shrinking. Inasmuch as speech in social media needs to be regulated to a higher standard than held by freedom of expression in general (a premise I don’t accept out of hand), wouldn’t it be nice if it was under some form of democratic control, rather than at the whim of some faceless tycoon?
I understand that action can be taken against things that are illegal of course but hate speech is not illegal in the U.S.
From Wikipedia:
While “ hate speech ” is not a legal term in the United States , the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment.
The Left has been saying that corporate control of what should be public is a problem for many years now. It’s a problem for both traditional media and social media.
I misunderstood what you meant by “convince to kill.” I thought you were talking “exterminate the cockroaches”, not “meat eaters are subhuman scum”.
I’m more or less talking about the technical side of things. The process used by social media doesn’t lend itself to the same rules that traditional media used in the past.
Don’t know how to solve the problem. Start by breaking up the media monopolies or near-monopolies.
As far as avoiding illegality anyone skilled in the art of rhetoric knows how to go up the the line to make their point without crossing.
its not the faceless tycoon that you have to worry about, it’s the people hell bent with an agenda that control the algorithms and have their finger on the ban button. John Dorsey of twitter has NO idea whats going on at his company. Dorsey and his head of legal were on Joe Rogans podcast a couple years ago and their ignorance about their own company and rules was astounding.
Do you really want someone on the far side of a spectrum - and which they do not hide this fact - to your values and beliefs being the arbiter of the content on inarguably one of the most widely used and read platforms in the world? THEY are deciding what is allowable or not, THEY are deciding what is true or not.
Twitter has the power to change the stock market. Arguably has the power to start wars.
Stock market, maybe. Start a war? Not likely. If some country starts a war based on some moron’s random Tweets society is doomed and rightfully so .
Does Civil War count??
There is no such thing. War is not civil. It is the brutal killing of more innocents than combatants. Anyone that thinks war solves problems has not participated in a war. The Twitters who propose war are by and large not veterans of combat, they are like most congress critters chicken hawks. Cowards
There is no maybe about moving the stock market. Elon Musk already got in trouble - several times - for posting stock related things on twitter (420, see current dogecoin and bitcoin endorsements). In terms of starting a war? Imagine a world leaders twitter account getting hacked (happened last year), or the Department of Defense, US Navy, etc…Said hacker posts something on the OFFICIAL twitter of said department. Remember the panic when someone in control of the early warning detection system in Hawaii posted about missiles inbound? That wasn’t a hack, but it had an effect.
If you don’t think it could happen, you’re crazy.
And as ombugge just said, things posted twitter has basically started a civil war.
I agree that war can never be “civil”, but for some reason that is what it is called when people of the same nationality fight each other. (VERY uncivil me think)
No one with half a brain listens to Musk. But, he plays people for fools with his Tweets so I guess a large portion of people are mising half a normal brain. 
I think this is the crux of the entire discussion. 'Democratic control’ assumes citizens are expressing their opinions, and that those citizens are doing so in good faith, or at least without malevolent intent.
By that’s not the case on Facebook, Twitter, or even gCaptain. We have little idea who is posting what on these platforms. It’s unbelievable to me that only one heinous crime is beyond the pale on internet forums, and yet agitating murder, torture, and assassination are okey-dokey. Is that what we’ve sunk to as a society? Liberty without responsibility=Afghanistan.
We all know that foreign countries bent on the dismantling of the USA are actively trying to influence and agitate public opinion. So it’s not just a matter of citizens trying to be heard. It’s also a matter of foreign agent agitating those citizens, and according to our intelligence services, doing a peachy job of it.
When someone writes a letter to a newspaper to express an opinion, they usually have to include their name and address, so that the editor has a reasonable way to determine if the letter is legit. Check the name, check the address. On the Internet most opinionating is completely anonymous, which to my mind is makes it less democratic than more so. Less democratic because it may not be a person expressing opinion. It may be a foreign security service, bent on turning those citizens against each other. It may not be free citizens trying to solve a problem. It may be groups busy arranging a genocide:
Many of the prominent accounts on Twitter are verified, the so-called blue checks.
The blue verified badge on Twitter lets people know that an account of public interest is authentic. To receive the blue badge, your account must be authentic , notable , and active .
Also Twitter does have a “mission” which is they say is the rational behind the policy against hate speech.
Twitter’s mission is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information, and to express their opinions and beliefs without barriers. Free expression is a human right – we believe that everyone has a voice, and the right to use it. Our role is to serve the public conversation, which requires representation of a diverse range of perspectives.
From what I’ve seen the main issue people who use Twitter have seems to be harassment from the non-verified accounts. Some post have hundreds of responses and I rarely read the responses so I don’t see that .
Here is the NWS for example:
