The European Commission request / require Facebook, Twitter and other to police their networks against unwanted political opinions and bad speech. This is a concern on a number of levels
community standardsFacebook has long banned certain topics under discussion - .. Specifically, nothing like nudity
This is an effect of Facebook being a child of the culture, it was founded in the United States of America. If Facebook was built in Germany, nudity was not a problem with Facebook, but it would be rather a complete ban on anything even resembling hate speech rallies, which yi
In this we can observe that all cultures have their taboos and their intolerance of certain subjects. Paul Graham has an excellent essay on the topic called "What you can not tell."
The first problem with this happens when a party obtains the right to determine that everyone is allowed to discuss. Facebook has reached this position. Being the de-facto default chat forum, he actually limited public rights to freedom of expression in its own "Community standards".
This is no small nut to crack from the standpoint of policy. Freedom of expression always assumed that people were talking in public, eye to eye. But when it comes to speech servers to someone else, we have so far accepted that the property rights of these servers replace the freedoms of expression.
But if the word practically only enters such private platforms? Facebook, Twitter, Instagram? What happens when the network effect almost forces you to publish an idea about these private platforms if you hope to reach anyone, and companies have the right to cancel your assignment according to their own policies?
We got to a point quite unexpected, where freedom of expression - in practice , nota bene - came in conflict with property rights. This is a very serious conflict from the perspective of freedom, and we are at the crossroads of this road. Whatever the chosen route, if freedom of speech or property rights is given priority for the future, we pose bases with implications for centuries to come. This is true if we assume that bases by the action or inaction.
The second problem with this is that the picture becomes much more ugly when politicians get involved in this conflict and want to capitalize on it. (This was a kind of common theme for everything related to the Internet, unfortunately.)
The European Commission has recently recruited Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Google (YouTube) to police their networks to eliminate speech that the European Commission deems "undesirable" or violatory its "code of conduct" rather arbitrary
would have been acceptable if the European Commission -. somewhat the equivalent of executive power - has established a Code of Conduct which can be discussed in public? No, of course he would not. In fact, it would be odious.
so we have a problem with private enforcers of limitations to freedom of expression, and suddenly, interfere politicians. However, they do not hesitate to safeguard freedom of expression, but to further reduce it on these private platforms. This is because of deep, deep concern.
The situation is like in the late 19th century, when labor movements had trouble getting their ideas. At that time, newspapers were the medium of choice. However, newspaper printers at the time refused to have anything to do with these unworthy rebels with unhealthy ideas. And can force a printer can take paying customers, they do not want to do business with?
Nevertheless, the end result was similar. To work around this problem, trade union activists of the era usually had to enlist newspaper printers in other countries and activists take them using all means were available
We all know how this finished. Since the ideas were attractive for their time, social democratic parties or labor parties finally took important foothold in Europe. The lesson here is that, at the end of the day, you can not really close the ideas with the staying power
Freedom of expression -. And, indeed, privacy - remain your own responsibility
0 Komentar