Most Americans say the U.S. government and technology companies should each take steps to restrict false information and extremely violent content online.
65% of Americans support tech companies moderating false information online and 55% support the U.S. government taking these steps. These shares have increased since 2018. Americans are even more supportive of tech companies (71%) and the U.S. government (60%) restricting extremely violent content online.
Absolutely not, it’s a slippery slope. It’s one of those “think of the children!” arguments where we decide what words are too harmful.
If they wanted to actually go and block misinformation on the web, why would they not also ban e2ee communication? It’s clearly a loophole where they could potentially be spreading misinformation that is ungoverned!
I entirely disagree it’s a slippery slope. We already have child pornography and anti-terrorism laws that platforms must follow, and yet we have somehow failed to fall down any further slopes (and in fact these are illegal even with e2ee communication). Yet e2ee communication and Facebook and Twitter continue to exist.
Why would adding misinformation to this list cause that to change?
Secondly, your argument can be used, exactly as you are making it, to say that child pornography and terrorist content on the Internet are fine actually. Why not simply allow its publication but tell people it’s bad and not to pay attention to it?
So since this is already happening, where exactly does your slippery slope objection come in? Why is this information germane to this specific argument?
You rang the alarm bell about this being a slippery slope that will lead to attempts to ban e2ee, but as you yourself demonstrated this is already happening, so I’m not sure how anything you’ve said applies to restricting false information online… and how it doesn’t also apply to, say, bans on child pornography, unless you disagree with those too?
Because those laws are bad and it will increase those laws, and is one of those bad laws… I’ve said this multiple times now. CP is an entirely different story and is universally banned, nobody wants that on their servers. Speech is another thing. Countries will never agree on misinfo and what’s truth, and it’ll be a constant game who servers banning traffic from different countries depending on if they agree or disagree with what they consider/enforce is misinfo. Misinfo idiots should still be getting banned off of social media, but the law should not be involved.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Absolutely not, it’s a slippery slope. It’s one of those “think of the children!” arguments where we decide what words are too harmful.
If they wanted to actually go and block misinformation on the web, why would they not also ban e2ee communication? It’s clearly a loophole where they could potentially be spreading misinformation that is ungoverned!
I entirely disagree it’s a slippery slope. We already have child pornography and anti-terrorism laws that platforms must follow, and yet we have somehow failed to fall down any further slopes (and in fact these are illegal even with e2ee communication). Yet e2ee communication and Facebook and Twitter continue to exist.
Why would adding misinformation to this list cause that to change?
Secondly, your argument can be used, exactly as you are making it, to say that child pornography and terrorist content on the Internet are fine actually. Why not simply allow its publication but tell people it’s bad and not to pay attention to it?
Actually these exact arguments are already being used to try and ban encryption.
See the UK: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption_ban_proposal_in_the_United_Kingdom
We’ve already had multiple laws in the US attempting the same: https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/01/earn-it-act-how-ban-end-end-encryption-without-actually-banning-it
Even the UN is trying to get together and ban it in multiple countries: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/international-statement-end-end-encryption-and-public-safety
So since this is already happening, where exactly does your slippery slope objection come in? Why is this information germane to this specific argument?
I’ve said it like three times already
You rang the alarm bell about this being a slippery slope that will lead to attempts to ban e2ee, but as you yourself demonstrated this is already happening, so I’m not sure how anything you’ve said applies to restricting false information online… and how it doesn’t also apply to, say, bans on child pornography, unless you disagree with those too?
Because those laws are bad and it will increase those laws, and is one of those bad laws… I’ve said this multiple times now. CP is an entirely different story and is universally banned, nobody wants that on their servers. Speech is another thing. Countries will never agree on misinfo and what’s truth, and it’ll be a constant game who servers banning traffic from different countries depending on if they agree or disagree with what they consider/enforce is misinfo. Misinfo idiots should still be getting banned off of social media, but the law should not be involved.