There should be no regulatory framework at all. The Christchurch video should have been able to be seen by everyone if they so chose. All of it should be free as in speech. I find discussing the implementation of alternatives anathema.<p>Youtube, Facebook, etc. are just a stopgap solution for infrastructure that should enable completely distributed and unblockable information by default. The problem is that we've taken too long to move on from them because they're easy. Any time the progress of technology slows down people seek to control how it's used. That this guy is explaining how the regulatory framework <i>should</i> work is a symptom of of this cycle and it needs to be ended or at the very least we need to move on to the next phase.<p>Seriously, any regulatory framework for the internet is shit and any line of thinking allowing for such shouldn't even be followed. Period.
UGH. I was so excited when I read the thread title, only to be sorely disappointed to realized they're talking about regulating the _wrong_ thing.<p>We need regulation to keep the web at least moderately open and interoperable. We need regulation to enforce standards and make it possible to jump over the wall of walled gardens.<p>We're in a sorry state right now in that only email and SMS are open standards for talking to people, and under constant siege. Attempts for new revolutionary decentralization are yet to do a better job than most protocols from the 80s. What if we had regulations to force service providers to provide APIs and interoperability in their services? What if messaging someone on Facebook from Google hangouts was as easy as sending an email?<p>The balkanization of the web and walled gardens is to me the biggest issue that affects the most people for the worst, and while we constantly talk about the new technologies that could solve the issue if only there was a way to develop them, we ignore (I think often out of unconditioned reflex) that the issue could be fixed in a timely and reasonable manner by bringing the government in with a reasonable framework.<p>People complain all the time about how Google and Facebook and Netflix and Spotify own all my data and make it impossible to use it outside their platform, yet I never hear people discussing the most obvious solution: just regulate them to make the data interoperable and empower you like you wish all the decentralized technology would enable you to do, if only they had adoption!
This is a simple articulation around something I've wondered for a while.<p>From a regulatory perspective should we be less concerned with regulating the content on the platform (e.g. a single post, copywrited material) and more concerned with regulating the broadcast effect/technology now inherent in all the non-chronological feeds across ad supported social giants (e.g. instagram now put my post in everyone's feed, or trending).<p>There seems to be more than enough precedent in the US around regulating control over broadcast, pre-internet: Limiting TV and newspaper ownership shares, limiting advertising to children and smoking ads, equal time, decency standards -not advocating, just calling out that these things have happened.<p>Some of this I think stems from content being carried on lines deemed "common carrier" (I'm no expert), but the gist seems to be the same here. No one said you couldn't make a movie that included a line with the word "Fuck", but you couldn't broadcast that movie into every American home before the 8 o'clock news.
I'm not a staunch defender of social media giants, but this article paints them in an unfair light.<p>It seems to suggest that FB endorses content like the Christchurch video, merely because the guy posted it on FB live. FB removed the video as fast as they could.<p>Apart from magical AI that could somehow stop the recording, I really don't know how else FB should have acted.
Unheard of. This is why in the US we have the 1st amendment backed by the 2nd amendment. The freedom of speech can't defend itself.<p>What needs regulation is ISPs and companies that deal with personal data.
What an oxymoron ? Regulation and Internet. If you regulate it, everyone will leave your regulated network for another parallel open network IPFS anyone.
but the questions is:
Does really spreading Christchurch video have any negative consequences?<p>Without answer to this question we cant censor speech and say we are not totalitarians.