|
vraghuram.bsky.social@vraghuram.bsky.social |
0 followers 1 following 25 posts
Views my own
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The NetChoice cases had sort of the opposite problem. Plaintiffs want to force the platforms to carry fringe content, but 1A protects their moderation decisions. Even if you agree the big platforms have too much power, a TX/FL win is not something to cheer for.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
There is a problem here, though. Who gets to decide what “disinformation” is, and under what circumstances? I can imagine a near future where the fact that Biden won in 2020 would officially be “disinformation.” There are serious candidates for office right now who believe this.
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
…with the end goal of getting the user to spend more time on the platform, or buy more copies of the newspaper, or read more stories, or whatever it is.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I also don’t see how curation done by algorithms is materially any different from curation done by humans; both are done with the purpose of providing the information that the curator thinks the user would most want and filtering out what they would find unpleasant…
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
And how do you touch algos without affecting speech? Platform moderation would be subject to the political whims of whatever authority crafts the regulations, not based on what works for users and advertisers.
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
“Selling eyeballs” is not an illegal, or even a malicious activity. That’s exactly what newspapers, news websites, and cable TV do. The platforms aren’t much different in this regard.
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
There’s also the general neo-B tendency to support anything (good or bad) that they perceive takes a hatchet to “big tech.”
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This leads to the third thing; he seems to imply that search and social media ought to be common carriers, like railroads or airlines. How can a platform rank content in an “unbiased” way subject to common carrier rules?
2 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Small forums do both of those things as well, but don’t need automation as they operate at a smaller scale. Should human moderators be subject to neutrality requirements?
1 replies 0 reposts 7 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Couple things. First, the fact that he sees NetChoice as morally equivalent to Citizens United. Second, the (IMO false) distinction he draws between human and “algorithmic” curation. Ranking and moderation are essential functions of social media, and they can do neither at scale without automation…
1 replies 0 reposts 7 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Could he have Mar-a-Lago declared a national wildlife refuge?
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Sad to see Tim Wu jumping the shark on this, especially considering his previous work on net neutrality.
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moody_v...
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
IANAL, but couldn’t this ruling cut both ways? E.g. it would be harder to use the agencies to implement a “Muslim ban?”
2 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I think the SC follows the Disney+ model
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Right-wing Republicans generally - and, strangely, a contingent of the neo-Brandeisian left - are rooting for Moody/Paxton.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
We still have the Netchoices - I wouldn’t rest easy just yet
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This is a cultural thing for us. When entering someone’s house, you always take off your shoes.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Isn’t this Oracle’s MO as well?
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
He has to bathe daily in a tub full of money to replenish his genius, obv
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
They have no grounds to be grumpy
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Section 230 was part of the text of the CDA, and the only part not to be ruled unconstitutional. And it’s pretty unambiguous - the FCC has no leeway to interpret it (they are an executive agency and not a court, after all).
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I don’t see how 230 “doesn’t serve the internet” - it seems to be doing that just fine. It isn’t serving the agents of moral panic, which is what all the public furor is about.
1 replies 0 reposts 5 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
AFAICT DSA casts a much wider net than AICOA would have - Wikipedia is covered FFS. I’m not saying having a covered platform designation is a good proposal by any stretch, but it’s less worse than a blanket repeal. Do you think the draft bill has legs? They couldn’t pass any tech bills last time.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@vraghuram.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Would adopting a “covered platform” designation similar to AICOA help blunt the impact of this to an extant?
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes