Read on Twitter
1/ Last week’s tech bans on Trump and Parler caused many to fret about Freedom of Speech. These bans didn’t limit freedom or set a new precedent. They did highlight how much room for improvement social networks have.
2/ I hold American liberty sacred, having grown up in Iran without it. I deeply support the 1st amendment and would protect it with my life. We should be vigilant of any new rules or precedents limiting liberty, as they might be a slippery slope.
3/ Enforcing known rules against a serial abuser isn’t new precedent. It only feels like it because the crimes were unprecedented. Such behavior by a president was unprecedented. This was the crime of the decade. Losing his account was a sad spectacle, not a policy precedent.
4/ Waiving enforcement would have been a disturbing precedent, and that’s why I joined others calling for Facebook and Twitter to act. https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1347009207220932608?s=20 The real problem is that these platforms don’t always act consistently or transparently. That’s where they can improve.
5/ Some suspect that FB, Twitter, and others “colluded” because they acted in tandem to ban the serial abuser. There’s a simpler explanation: a major crime occurred. Crime has consequences and liability. Companies avoid liability.
6/ Some suspect that AWS, Stripe, and others cut off Parler for political motives. There’s a simpler explanation: it was after weeks of warning Parler about its policy violations related to violence & crime. “Freedom of crime” isn’t a right.
7/ If the tech cos had banned these abusers before the U.S. election, one might suspect political motives, collusion, etc. That wasn’t the case.
8/ Aside from last week’s events, we should ask how we got here and demand social networks to do better. For one thing, policies are more effective when transparent and consistent rather than based on arbitrary and opaque whims.
9/ Lax and inconsistent enforcement encourages abuse. Just as SF should prosecute criminals more consistently, tech cos should enforce policy more consistently. Likewise, tech cos should increase transparency so it’s clear what behavior has what repercussions.
10/ As an example of clarity and consistency, read this excellent proposal on how to update US law (Section 230) to bring companies’ content moderation policies in line with the 1st amendment. https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1347924658843234307?s=20
11/ Would this affect last week’s bans? Not necessarily. Sec 230 governs removal of content, not customers. Social networks are not common carriers and not required to serve everyone. Denying service to a serial abuser is a reasonable rule that motivates people to self-moderate.
12/ More broadly, social networks can be much smarter about motivating us all to self-moderate. We should ask why these networks motivate and amplify the kind of behavior that led us here, and how to reverse this. This is a bigger topic. I’ll share thoughts on this another day.
