Proposals for Government regulation of internet/social media

[Maxxtraxx]

Hello all,

 

Some interesting news I just came across, perused quickly and figured I would share after all the diverse opinions I saw on the net neutrality issue.

 

It is apparently a proposal being circulated by certain senators.

 

The link to an article written by the Libertarian website Reason.com briefly discussing some of the proposals can be found HERE

 

The full PDF of the proposal is HERE:

PlatformPolicyPaper.pdf

 

I have not had the time or desire to read the full PDF that was leaked... It's long and full of legal speak.

 

Some of the headline proposals:

 

For social media platforms:

Quote: 

"Mandatory location verification"

"Mandatory identity verification"

"Bot labeling"

 

Quote:

 

"Other proposals include more disclosure requirements for online political speech, more spending to counter supposed cybersecurity threats, more funding for the Federal Trade Commission, a requirement that companies' algorithms can be audited by the feds (and this data shared with universities and others), and a requirement of "interoperability between dominant platforms."

The paper also suggests making it a rule that tech platforms above a certain size must turn over internal data and processes to "independent public interest researchers" so they can identify potential "public health/addiction effects, anticompetitive behavior, radicalization," scams, "user propagated misinformation," and harassment—data that could be used to "inform actions by regulators or Congress.""

 

All in all, the synopsis of the content of this article (and supposedly the actual proposal) is of a highly concerning nature to me.

 

This proposal seeks to add a government approved level of speech and remove free speech from an area... that while controlled by private companies, has also been an area where thought diversity and freedom were assumed to have been core values. This very issue has come under heavy attack in the last two years under the guise of controlling "hate speech" but has really been about censoring any speech that these large tech companies disagree with. Most of these companies have shown themselves to be very biased in their voluntary censorship of free speech towards one group of individuals but have not been consistent in applying that same standard to opposing groups of individuals. This problem has been seen over and over again, when one group censors all speech that they disagree with by forcibly silencing others we start down a road to a loss of freedom, a road that we are already starting down and are accelerating.

 

I find myself on the side/in the camp of the individuals that are being censored because of their beliefs, opinions, values and this entire topic is very important to me and concerning to me.

 

I find myself of the opinion that this very Forum and it's moderators are and have shown bias(though to a lesser degree than many of these social media sites) against those who are of the party, of the mindset, opinion an values that hold dear. It is one of the very reasons that I have found myself coming to this forum less and as a result also being less inclined to watch Linus's youtube channels, while Linus himself and those on his show have only allowed their opinions slip out on a few occasions that I have been privy to (though i do not watch the WAN show). I have found enjoyment from participating in this forum but it has grown more difficult as I have seen that there are those who oppose and differ from my viewpoint, which is fine and healthy, but similar to the mindset of our PC and safe zone culture, if someone has a viewpoint that differs from the approved and popular path it has started to become the norm to get angry/yell, condemn differing viewpoints with false accusations or to simply shut down and stop any speech that deviates from what is considered PC.

 

These are the reasons why this is important across the internet as a whole, within this forum and to me personally.  Many in these and approved by these Social media sites like call me and people like me fascist, but fascists are the ones who shut down differing opinions and free speech, which means that in many cases those yelling fascist at others are the ones approving of and calling for what fascism does and results in.

 

 

[Guest]

Don’t see any issue with this

[PlayStation 2]

Ah, drafted by only one party. This can't go wrong at all.

[DrMacintosh]

44 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Mandatory location verification

Mandatory identity verification

Bot labeling

I mean, I'm ok with everything but the identity verification for certain platforms.  

[PlayStation 2]

Actually, hold the fuck up.

Many on this forum were crying about privacy and the government to not control the internet, and now we're coming out in favor of the government controlling the internet? People can't choose both.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Actually, hold the fuck up.

Many on this forum were crying about privacy and the government to not control the internet, and now we're coming out in favor of the government controlling the internet? People can't choose both.

Governments can fuck off when it comes to the internet.

[Selah]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Actually, hold the fuck up.

Many on this forum were crying about privacy and the government to not control the internet, and now we're coming out in favor of the government controlling the internet?

There is no control implied within that document. Unless you're talking about controlling the public through labeling the botnets fascists and propaganda agents use?

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

<removed>

 

Yeah, I do wanna wait and see how real this is, but this could very well be something in the works.

Everything is something in the works.  People take any proposal and then extrapolate until they find the possible use (no matter how far fetched or likely) they disagree with then argue to have the whole thing thrown out on that basis.    Now I am not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, just saying that these things are becoming more and more a part of political discourse and action because they are a problem, a real problem that has to be addressed. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by SansVarnic

[aezakmi]

In which country is this? or is it for the EU?

1 hour ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Mandatory location verification

Mandatory identity verification

That's a way to end or at least punish with IRL prison time indiscriminate harassment, bullying and similar stuff, it could also be useful for catching criminals like pedophiles or online scammers.

 

Since it's a World Wide Web it should be controlled by a worldwide agency with a representative of each country, similar to the united nations

Anyway, I don't think this is ever gonna be approved, not with powerful lobbies or strong left/populist governments (in third world) against this kind of stuff, it's obvious they don't want to bring law to the network because it goes against the "human rights" as they always say

[Trik'Stari]

Simple.

 

 

You either abide free speech to anyone who joins, or you state up front "we are biased in favor of X opinion, anyone who disagrees with that opinion will be silenced, censored, and not given the human right to dissent".

 

 

Verbatim. End of story, nothing else is even remotely acceptable. I don't care if you're a private company. You are providing a service to the public, that allows said public to state their opinions, thoughts, etc. for free, to that same public. Providing such a platform should not EVER include the ability to censor opinions you disagree with, without blatantly and up front admitting to doing so.

 

 

Don't like it? Start a company in a different industry then.

 

 

This should be solely limited to political opinions. A company should not be able to blatantly ban people for being in support of a party that said company disagrees with. Companies are not people in and of themselves, they should not be allowed to have a political opinion. Corporate personhood is horse shit.

[handymanshandle]

<removed>

 

5 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Simple.

 

 

You either abide free speech to anyone who joins, or you state up front "we are biased in favor of X opinion, anyone who disagrees with that opinion will be silenced, censored, and not given the human right to dissent".

 

 

Verbatim. End of story, nothing else is even remotely acceptable. I don't care if you're a private company. You are providing a service to the public, that allows said public to state their opinions, thoughts, etc. for free, to that same public. Providing such a platform should not EVER include the ability to censor opinions you disagree with, without blatantly and up front admitting to doing so.

Frankly the only way I could agree to anything like mentioned in the OP is if it was securing the first amendment right in a literal translation of the amendment.

 

 

All speech is free speech, the only speech that is not is slander and libel.

Edited August 8, 2018 by SansVarnic

[Trik'Stari]

5 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Frankly the only way I could agree to anything like mentioned in the OP is if it was securing the first amendment right in a literal translation of the amendment.

 

 

All speech is free speech, the only speech that is not is slander and libel.

To people who ask why:

 

Being able to censor the opinions of the public, to that same public, is essentially more power than has ever been wielded in human history. That level of power is COMPLETELY unacceptable in the hands of ANYONE. It does not need to exist or be allowed. That is more power than even governments should be allowed to wield. Completely fucking egregious in its nature, and 100% guaranteed to corrupt anyone who wields said power.

 

<removed>

Edited August 8, 2018 by SansVarnic

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

To people who ask why:

 

Being able to censor the opinions of the public, to that same public, is essentially more power than has ever been wielded in human history. That level of power is COMPLETELY unacceptable in the hands of ANYONE. It does not need to exist or be allowed. That is more power than even governments should be allowed to wield. Completely fucking egregious in its nature, and 100% guaranteed to corrupt anyone who wields said power.

Which is why I could honestly never really be in support of something like mentioned in the OP because it's way too risky of it being abused.

 

I would love if there was a way to hold certain sites that have a slight monopoly on their category to upholding constitutional rights but again it could be abused.

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Which is why I could honestly never really be in support of something like mentioned in the OP because it's way too risky of it being abused.

 

I would love if there was a way to hold certain sites that have a slight monopoly on their category to upholding constitutional rights but again it could be abused.

That's actually simple.

 

Break them up. Monopolies are not supposed to exist anyways. And if a company fails, LET THEM FAIL.

[vorticalbox]

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

That's actually simple.

 

Break them up. Monopolies are not supposed to exist anyways. And if a company fails, LET THEM FAIL.

Why would you let them fail if they have a good product that you can take and turn a profit on? 

[handymanshandle]

Just now, vorticalbox said:

Why would you let them fail if they have a good product that you can take and turn a profit on? 

because if you end their strangle hold on the category of their site then the market has a better chance at choosing what survives. Linking back to youtube, there's nothing that comes close to it really.

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

Governments can fuck off when it comes to the internet.

Preach.

[ARikozuM]

I'm not for mandatory tracking of user or location. Bot tracking I don't mind, but don't track every user on the web. Privacy is a big thing that we're supposed to be fighting for and doing this to "catch criminals" is not the way to do it. You'll catch the lesser criminals, but the bigger prizes are always smarter than that.

What I would like to see is a simple, unified plagiarism algorithm. It would catch the bots that make the exact same string of text while keeping out the odd rando that just copy-pasted sixty times. 

 

I'm voting "no". 

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, vorticalbox said:

Why would you let them fail if they have a good product that you can take and turn a profit on? 

Require them to sell off all copyrights and patents.

 

If they are failing then they likely don't have a good product, can't turn a profit, then they deserve to fail. Capitalism NEEDS for companies to be able to fail.

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Require them to sell off all copyrights and patents.

I would love for this to happen, but I think we need less time for most patents to be protective. A lot of medications these days are patented, protected, and sold until the day that the time expires. And then POOF, a new, better drug appears on the market to replace it from the same company.

 

Note: I don't really care about the "they have to make money" opinion since they have to make more than enough as it is. With all of the incentives they give doctors to prescribe the meds, let's put that towards less expensive and better medical procedures and medications.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

I mean, I'm ok with everything but the identity verification for certain platforms.  

As VPNs and public hotspots exist, I'm also fine with the attempt to verify location.

 

[Trik'Stari]

17 minutes ago, DaPhuc said:

But why the phuc do we have to say it every single day?! 

To reinforce the lesson dude. To ingrain it into you. Most people don't understand it to begin with (or so it seems) and they apparently don't teach civics in school any more.

 

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I would love for this to happen, but I think we need less time for most patents to be protective. A lot of medications these days are patented, protected, and sold until the day that the time expires. And then POOF, a new, better drug appears on the market to replace it from the same company.

 

Note: I don't really care about the "they have to make money" opinion since they have to make more than enough as it is. With all of the incentives they give doctors to prescribe the meds, let's put that towards less expensive and better medical procedures and medications.

Yeah, copyrights and patents need to be completely revamped. In just about every field.

 

 

As for medical companies, they should have to 100% disclose every single dime they spend, on ANYTHING. They claim to need excessively high profit margins in order to fund R&D, they need to be prepared to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

I consider myself a true capitalist. I don't mind companies making a profit, but some companies should not be allowed to make insane profits on essential goods and services that benefit humanity. Luxury goods is one thing, but you shouldn't be able to charge 400% on a product that costs a few dollars to make and some people need to fucking live.

 

 

We need BALANCE between smart legislation, and freedom for companies to make a profit. Profit is the motivation that drives our society, but that needs to be limited from being egregious and harmful.

[Okjoek]

Well playing devil's advocate you wouldn't need to worry about being banned from a platform by a company that doesn't like what you have to say. Assuming ofcourse these regulations would hold social media to 1st amendment standards.

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

Well playing devil's advocate you wouldn't need to worry about being banned from a platform by a company that doesn't like what you have to say. Assuming ofcourse these regulations would hold social media to 1st amendment standards.

That's my point.

 

They either need to abide the first amendment, or blatantly and outright admit to their bias. End of story. No arguing, no doubletalk, no "we don't like what WE CONSIDER hate speech, etc.".

 

These companies have blatantly allowed "hate speech" towards one group, while being blatantly overzealous in banning mere criticism of certain other groups.

 

I have no problem with people having bias, we're all human. But you don't get to pretend to not have bias while your actions are blatantly biased. That cannot be allowed.

[JoseGuya]

(forum)>Controlling the internet is fascist!

 

(Government> Proposal to regulate and control social media

 

(forum) >Actually, thats fine.

 

Who the fuck get you, people? First of all, you have a right to an opinion, but you don't have rights to an audience, if a P R I V A T E company does not want to store your bullshit, they absolutely can and are in their right to ban/shadow ban/suspend your account. 

 

But a government? No fucking way, that's begging for fascist state. Why the difference? Because governments have the monopoly on force, and they have already agreed to follow rules imposed their nations' constitution.