Study: Social media probably can’t be fixed

[collinsmark]

And by 'rules of society' I do not mean only those written down in a constitution, or passed by majority vote by lawmakers. Unwritten rules, such as pleasantries ( handshakes, greetings upon meeting someone ) as a simple example, also apply.

But you must agree that even outside of law enforcement/government, "rules of society" dictate that words and actions do have consequences.

Free speech means that you won't be arrested by law enforcement (or prosecuted under the legal system) for voicing your opinions. It does not mean that you are free of social and societal consequences from voicing your opinion.

A case in point - at one time past, giving the finger to a policeman was giving him/her the opportunity of investigation for disorderly conduct. Now, it has become a protected legal free speech expression, at least in Canada and the US.

True. But now imagine walking into a coffee shop and giving the finger to the barista followed by giving the finger to patrons sitting around at tables. At the very least, by the rules of society, you can expect to be called out for being an jerk. And more likely than not you'll be kicked out of the coffee shop. Protesting the consequences by crying, "I shouldn't have been kicked out of the coffee shop. Free speech, free speech," misses the whole point of what "free speech" is really about.

 

[256bits]

Free speech, free speech," misses the whole point of what "free speech" is really about.

For the general public, is this it?
Voltaire — ‘I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’

I am not advocating boorish behavior in private ( nor public settings ).
Invoking a trespass upon the individual(s) can deal with the physical situation, at a specific location such as a cafe, or the home.
In the digital world, the banning of the account, and to a lessor degree, the removal of postings accomplishes a similar outcome.

The free speech aspect in the media world, be it digital, print, video, radio, auditorium comes about as to the censorship of ideas that may offend, and there is always a likelihood that someone out there will be offended.

The 'gatekeeper of ideas' is problematic in that "Will the gatekeeper be completely impartial in the selection process?"
Should the gatekeeper be an agency directed by the government? in which case, the legal aspect of the right to free speech arises. Questions arise as to whether the agency is immune to the whims of the political flavour of the day?
Should the gatekeeper be the a private enterprise? who will have there own leanings as to what is proper, with differences from enterprise to the next.

In either case, funds have to be allocated ( as stated in an posting earlier ), either with tax dollars or designated fees from the enterprise ( or user ) paid to the government run agency, or by the enterprise(s) themselves running their own system. The taxdollar system a lot of people consider as being free. The fee system, or the enterprise system gets pushback.

 

[martinbn]

For the general public, is this it?
Voltaire — ‘I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. This quotation – which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself – is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.

 

[collinsmark]

For the general public, is this it?

[...]

Invoking a trespass upon the individual(s) can deal with the physical situation, at a specific location such as a cafe, or the home.

In the digital world, the banning of the account, and to a lessor degree, the removal of postings accomplishes a similar outcome.

So far I agree. But hold on. Two things.

1. In my earlier posts, I thought we were talking about social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter (X or whatever it's called now) or YouTube, etc. All privately owned. But rereading your recent post it sounds like you're discussing a taxpayer funded, community owned, public social media site. I didn't know such places existed. Is that what you propose (future platform maybe)?
2. "Freedom of speech" applies online as it does anywhere else. There's no need for a distinction. If you live in a country that has freedom of speech, you can post your opinions all you want on Facebook or Twitter, or the feedback section of your local government's website, and rest assured that cops won't knock on your door and arrest you because they don't like your opinion. But that doesn't mean there are no consequences for such actions. If you're a jerk, expect to get called out for it (just like anywhere else). Your behavior might be discouraged and/or even mocked. If you break the rules of the site, expect repercussions (i.e., similar to no placing advertisements or skateboarding in the public park) . If it's a privately owned site (all social media sites that I presently know of are), they may refuse you service or even ban you altogether. Just like a coffee shop.

Takeaways:
Freedom of speech, where applicable, is no different online than it is anywhere else (where applicable).
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Freedom of speech looks different to freedom of 'the press'. The latter is the freedom of press owners to promote their views widely whilst suppressing (or mocking or misrepresenting) others, including political partisan ones, with minimal constraints. They can be held accountable for slander... if the ones slandered have deep enough pockets but telling the truth is not a requirement and telling lies appears to be not just permitted but was normalised long before social media.

Where social media owners use their 'freedom' to promote some views and suppress others it looks to me like they are exercising freedom of the press. I am not as unthinkingly in favour of freedom of the press as freedom of speech for individuals.

In order to influence - whether to induce spending money on advertiser's products and services or to promote political and other viewpoints - getting attention is the crucial step one.

Pressing people's buttons, triggering their triggers, is a powerful way to grab attention. I do fear the use of AI for this purpose; what presses our buttons and reacting seems to switch off the capacity to take in new information or to judge the validity and value.
It is the attention that counts most with social media and being nasty gets lots of it. Sometimes that is what it takes to induce participation.

Or we can be distracted from thinking about what is important... did that cute cat really do that? Now we can add in the question of whether it was AI generated to our distractions.

As an Australian I don't know how the new age requirements will work out - and to what extent those can be circumvented. Or to what extent the companies will encourage such circumventions. Should be able to block accounts from VPN's. It seems like some kind of age restrictions are widely supported in principle - there really is a lot of unsavoury material around that children should not be exposed to. In practice people of all ages will probably find the signing up and signing in processes (more) frustrating and annoying.

 

[Rive]

"Freedom of speech" applies online as it does anywhere else.

Except that 'IRL' people has only one physical presence and that natural limitation will severely hinder everybody in doing plenty of things completely 'natural' online.

The whole framework of discussing the 'freedom of speech' was set up and based on that physical presence.

‘I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’

Sometimes I wonder what that sentence would have been about with the other party being a deaf ghost set at high respawn rate and with a loudspeaker.

 

[256bits]

it sounds like you're discussing a taxpayer funded, community owned, public social media site.

That could be a third way to regulate content - direct nationalisation of the media industry - so that only messaging supportive of the government initiatives are expressed.

The government involvement that I was discussing is the development of a separate body with the powers of regulation, similar to what is now available for a wide range of industries. The transportation boards, in one form or another, regulate the movement of vehicles whether that be on land, air or sea. Elon Musk, for example, requires approval of a launch window before sending a rocket into space. The CRTC in Canada is given the power to regulate the airways, giving out a licence for broadcast. The regulation was extended to cable. The extension to the internet becomes problematic due to the international aspect of that segment of the media industry.

 

[256bits]

Sometimes I wonder what that sentence would have been about with the other party being a deaf ghost set at high respawn rate and with a loudspeaker.

Cute phrases are only cute in their own context, outliers proving the exception rather than the rule.

"The early bird gets the worm"
"It is never too late"

 

[DaveC426913]

I understand that examples of social networks (over time) where moderation apparently didn't work are abundant, but since moderation do seem to work in some contexts (e.g. PF) I am still puzzled to identify the key enabler for why this is so. Is it network size alone or do other factors play essential part?

If the internet were a brick-and-mortar corporation, the normal process would be for it to grow geometrically, but in doing so, it would set up barriers between its processes and its consumers perpetually distancing itself.

Think about a giant company like Coca-Cola (which is apparently owned by Berkshire Hathaway). No cola consumers could even get on the grounds of the corporation - or parent company - let alone into their meeting rooms to give them your opinion.

But the internet is the great equalizer, and puts the consumer right up rubbing shoulders with the owner.

Imagine having direct, real-time access to every employer and user of the corporation. Imagine you, a user, in Sheboygan WI saying "I think that Cola-drinkers all over the country should be offered name badges that display our gender pronouns" and the CEO of Coca Cola in Atlanta, responding with "That's a great idea. We'll do that ASAP."


That and the fact that it costs comparatively nothing to set up an online service if what someone is offering is not exactly to your taste. If PF were flooded with millions of users, you can bet that there would be a LOT more friction about how its should be run. The larger an organization, the harder it is to please everyone. Why try? Let them go to a Politics / Climate Change / Philosophy forum if that's what they want.

And that keeps numbers down. And that's a good thing. Focus. Specialization.

 

[256bits]

Has this passed in the US?
The article states it has been presented a few times. with some changes with support from a few tech companies and platform giants have voiced support, while other entities have voiced disagreement.

The article is from May 2025 ( Bravo to the Times to date their content )
https://time.com/7288539/kids-online-safety-act-status-what-to-know/

I believe Australia has passed a bill as well as the UK addressing the issue of age verification.
@Ken Fabian

 

[russ_watters]

Why it is always only about free speech, then?

It is frequently misunderstood (in the US anyway) to be both absolute and universal. It's a cultural quirk.

 

[russ_watters]

The 'gatekeeper of ideas' is problematic in that "Will the gatekeeper be completely impartial in the selection process?"

It's really not, unless someone is over-interpreting the concept of freedom of speech, as I described before: it doesn't exist outside of government, so there's no problem if people/companies want to do censorship. There's nobody to require anybody to be impartial.

Should the gatekeeper be an agency directed by the government? in which case, the legal aspect of the right to free speech arises. Questions arise as to whether the agency is immune to the whims of the political flavour of the day? Should the gatekeeper be the a private enterprise? who will have there own leanings as to what is proper, with differences from enterprise to the next.

Except, narrowly, for criminal levels of abuse there's no legal requirement. Beyond that it's up to the company/forum. The company/forum does the moderation, and the government just judges if it is sufficient to prevent criminal abuse. This can be explicitly mandated, but right now is mostly just via lawsuits.

 

[fresh_42]

I just read an article about Reanne Evans, a 12-time women’s world snooker champion.

The abuse she receives on social media has been a constant source of distress, intensifying even when she wins. “It’s the usual stuff, but I get even more abuse when I win,” she shares. “I could post a picture of a tree, and I’d still get abuse.”

Source: https://sportgoal.com.ng/unexpected-health-issues-and-online-abuse-forces-snooker-queen-to-quit/

This is so ridiculous that I wonder what kind of people these are. Snooker? Really? Women's snooker? I understand that dopamine is the key to a lot of decisions people make, from supermarkets to the "like" systems on social media. But how can posting such abusive comments release dopamine?

 

[Ken Fabian]

That could be a third way to regulate content - direct nationalisation of the media industry - so that only messaging supportive of the government initiatives are expressed.

Government funded media can be 'at arms length'. Australia's experience (possibly UK and elsewhere too) is that such media are not government mouthpieces and can and do criticise governments, parties and initiatives. I think more often with more freedom and less bias than commercial media - in some cases commercial media are clearly, unequivocally politically partisan and on some issues showing much more bias, eg promoting climate science denial and economic and social/political fears of climate initiatives and emissions reductions efforts has primarily been promoted via commercial media.

Politicians are always looking for a sniff of bias - but are often seeking bias in their favour as much as opposing bias per se. Commercial media themselves are in some cases constant critics, some mastheads having staff writers that relentlessly berate and criticise taxpayer funded media.

Taxpayer funded media like we have is not perfect, no, but intrinsically seeking to evade criticism and please Australian governments? No. Do elected governmentss try and 'stack' the Board in pursuit of partisanship, yes that happens too. But if anything I think they take their day to day cues from other media and are inclined to join in the sensationalist media pile ons and witch hunts.