I think some safeguards need to be put into place; if you look at the propaganda-machine-work in Nazi Germany, it can do terrible harm. But in the U.S. under Reagen, the fairness doctrine was scrapped, which meant local news outlets of all sorts could be grabbed up by opinionated multi-nationals, and you get people like Rush Linbaugh spreading hatred unchallenged in rural areas - probably the biggest swatch of territory in the country. That's where "these people" get their news, unchallenged. It's far-right-wing money. I also think hate speech might be covered more directly - one of the tshirts at the riot said in abbreviated form - 6 million is not enough. What do you do with that?

Best, Alan (mind you I've been censored on YouTube and elsewhere myself, I think unfairly, so you might make a counter-argument that it's all in the eye/ear of the beholder. It's an aporia.)

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 2:07 PM Edward Picot via NetBehaviour <netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
What do people think - have we reached the point at which social media
companies should be prosecuted for allowing hate-speech, incitements to
violence, demonstrable untruths and conspiracy theories to be uploaded
onto their sites?

Should they be regarded as publishers, and therefore legally responsible
for their content?

I'm genuinely torn, but I think maybe we've now reached that point. I'd
be very interested to hear what others think.

Edward

_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour


--
=====================================================
directory http://www.alansondheim.org tel 718-813-3285
email sondheim ut panix.com, sondheim ut gmail.com
=====================================================