Is it any less difficult a task for legislators to regulate social media policies on censorship than it is for those sites to censor their users?
They've invested heavily in developing the technology and procedures for manipulating algorithms, shadowbanning, curating content, tracking IPs / cookies / hardware / etc, word filters and so on so forth
What they've done so far was no easy task. If you rewound time to the 1990s / early 2000s and told people that the future would involve pervasive internet censorship over posts by random people at low levels as well as celebrities and pundits in direct actions, they might challenge you on the logistics and feasibility of such algorithmic censorship for what at the time seemed like an endless, burgeoning web.

What the government can and should do isn't simple, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. And what would the initial steps of corrective regulation look like?
I'd say they'd look something like this:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/17/doj-takes-aim-at-section-230-tech-liability-shield.html

Everything you listed has other services available to replace Google if you want to boycott google. Google has them all bundled together for easier access, but they are far from the only player in the market on any of those things you listed.

small steps to allow lawsuits, ok, i can dig that. senators saying "we need to make a board to fact check the fact checkers" tho? thats idiocy. it will fail, miserably.

even listening to Jack Dorsey talk about how their reporting method works now, and that was a year or so ago, gives me zero hope the legislature can keep them in check, let alone even understand the tech at play. that same incredulity you're talking about given time exists now. senators arent smart enough, and even if they were in the 6 months from research to voting (and thats optimistic) the game will have changed.

the USA govt simply isnt flexible enough in real time for some things. like in Fast 3 Tokyo Drift, if u can drive faster than the cops they dont bother.

This sort of mindset can be applied to all speech. After all, if you're not a political pundit with millions of followers, what do you need speech for?

zealots tend to die bloody on a hilltop somewhere. i'd prefer to filter my morals through the lens of even basic pragmatism. chasing down social media giants with legislation is moronic. like i said, you'll be blizzard trying to ban bots. 6 months work just to shut them down for a few days.

It could as simple as applying pressure to those companies to have political views inclusion. We have a push for various types of inclusion and diversity when it comes to sex, race, sexual orientation but we're definitely seeing discrimination crop up based on political views in much of the corporate world. I worked at a large corporate bank, every other cubicle had a rainbow flag. If i would have tried putting up a cross flag onto mine i know for a fact i would have been ostracized and could guarantee i would have gotten the talk from HR. That's just facts of the world we live in now.

I don't know what regulation could come from this because it's a problem so unique to massive information keepers like google like Facebook. I think those platforms require a higher level of scrutiny than the CNN's and Fox's. I don't want to legislate away political bias from news, that's an impossible feat, what should be possible is to force some of the former to be inclusive when it comes to political opinions spectrum. Nowadays you basically have a bunch of leftists policing the corporate and media world and at any sight of divergence they try to destroy you. Like a football coach has to apologize for wearing an OAN shirt? We've reached this level?

Honestly so much of society is sheepishly complicit in this. The reason is obvious, it's not that they agree, it's the fact that you will immediately get ostracized and labeled an ist. That's why polls are garbage and that's why the silent majority decides elections.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jun 17 2020 01:59pm

really the only thing of a plan i see in here is force news networks to include other opinions. i dont know how to write that into law effectively, if they did it would be unconstitutional, and if the SCOTUS let it happen they could get around it with ease, AND in real time the govt couldn't track and enforce it at any reasonable pace.

we can't fix it with law, its a leaky pipe and the law is a hammer. its a problem, it needs fixing, we just arent using the right tools.

I'm sorry, why are we defending outlandish conspiracy theories (i.e. Pizzagate) and outright racist statements? This doesn't necessarily apply to THIS specific case but we keep saying that these are "conservative viewpoints." How about you take your fucking ideology back from the crazies first? I agree that tech companies have too much power but the only thing you can really do is have a commission that reviews the search algorithms and policing policies of these companies. You're going to have to invest in Congressional staffers who understand the issues well. You're going to have to create another agency that's part of the dreaded deep state that can properly enforce the law. You will have to put more money into GOVERNMENT.

stopping monetization and demanding regulating a fucking comment section on a news website =/= 'taking back ideology from the crazies'. the 'crazies' do not hold any legitimate power other than the power of the shitpost, they didn't when McCain called all Trump supporters 'crazies' in 2015 and they don't today.
i agree that these websites should more thoroughly enforce their terms of use but come on.

as you said what would have to happen for the tech companies to be held accountable would be akin to the government 'fixing the internet'

This post was edited by excellence on Jun 17 2020 02:41pm

When Alex Jones and Milo were targeted, conservatives were furious that "conservative ideology" was being censored. I understand that this doesn't apply to this specific case but conservatives have let this shit fester and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

It seems that the NBC article was an example of card_sultan getting an internship as a journalist so it's really difficult to get the facts of the case. However, it's pretty clear that this isn't a blanket demonetization of the organizations as a whole. I've also read that Google does this to TONS of websites (including YouTube) and that they work with the organizations/content creators to get this right.

I'm definitely on the side of limiting the power of tech giants. They have more power than most governments which is pretty scary.