Thread by @tomaspueyo

It sounds to me like the debate about free speech is mixing 2 things completely different: The letter & spirit of the law. I don't think that's the right debate. So let's look at Trump, Social Networks, the future of speech, and much more. 🧵

1. The 1st amendment protects PRIVATE entities from the GOV.

That means you can say whatever you want without risking penalties from the gov. That's it.

You don't get to be heard. Others don't have a duty to listen. You're free to scream in the void.

So Sen Hawley is wrong—and he knows it.

https://twitter.com/hawleymo/status/1347327743004995585?s=21

Also, Trump doesn't have a right to his Twitter, YT, FB, Snap audiences.

That's even more obvious and stupid since he can say whatever he wants in his press room and the world will listen.

Preposterous.

That also means FB & Co can legally deplatform Trump or anybody else they want.

However,

2. Section 230 states that platforms like Tw/FB are not responsible for the content in their platforms because they are not editors. As long as they have rules that they broadly consistently apply, they can maintain they aren't editors.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2…

But over the last few months, have they consistently applied their rules? No. First they allowed Trump, then they didn't. They're playing a dangerous game. They might end up responsible for their content if they keep editorializing.

Liability on all their content? Destruction

3. There are LIMITS to the 1st amd: lies, incitement to violence, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, violating IP...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St…

I am curious how Trump's lies and incitement to violence could be protected by the 1st amd. Eg: “incitement”—speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action”
britannica.com/topic/First-Am…

So from a 1st amd standpoint, nothing to see here, except maybe Trump is liable.

The real debate is not about the letter of the law in the 1st amd. It's about the society we want to build.

Do we want a place where a few corporations can shape the public opinion?

4. The public opinion has always been shaped.
Before the 80s, the US had the Fairness Doctrine. You had to be balanced. That's a way of shaping opinion by the gov.

When it was retired (due to a 1st amd challenge) it opened the gates for cable news
britannica.com/topic/Fairness…

Since then, cable news have shaped public opinion. You can nearly tell when the Fairness Doctrine went out by when megapolarization starts
journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…

Those fearing Social Networks' shaping of public opinion as a societal pbm don't usually balk at the power that Fox or CNN have at brainwashing tens of millions of ppl.

Esp since what they're trying to avoid here is a new Civil War.

So what's the fundamental question we're debating? Here it is:

As a society, how can we make sure the best ideas win?

The Founding Fathers had a great idea about it over 200 years ago: "We can't tell what's good or bad, so let's just let everybody say whatever they want, and the truth will bubble out.

That was true for the longest time, but for a particular reason: attention vs. content

Before, there was little content available and a lot of attention. Ppl were not very connected, so they debated their few ideas between them. They knew each other. A reputation for trust built up little by little because every idea could be analyzed with time and depth

That's not true anymore. Globally connected, there's much more content than attention.

Now the quality of content is not analyzed equally. In fact, the opposite happens: lies spread faster than the truth and to more ppl (up to 100x)
science.sciencemag.org/content/359/63…

That's how you have millions of ppl believing QAnon.
How can the best ideas win in this context?

The stakes are huge. Hitler won legally. He was also able to hijack ppl's brains with his oratory style and as a master of propaganda. Imagine if he had had the tools Trump had?

In fact, I'm not concerned about Trump. Or Hawley. Or Cruz. Or any equivalent on the Left, or in other countries.
I'm concerned about the person, at home, that just realized they can take over the government with enough communication skills and a bit of intelligence.

Here's the new challenge: How can we build a new infrastructure that enables the Truth to win?

That's what we need as a society.
What does that look like?

I don't know. I'd love to learn.
But maybe here are a few ideas:
1. We need a sense of idea-level trust: How true is a given idea? The quality and attractiveness of an idea should be crowd-sourceable, with everybody contributing. Wikipedia is too boring & has the wrong controls.

2. We need user-level trust. A track-record of truth, lies, and being right for every user (whether a person, company, anonymous account...).

3. The level of distribution your ideas get should be proportional to their engagement + their truth + the users' track record of Truth

What else?
Do these make sense?

Additional point about Parler and the fact that it was deplatformed by Google Play, App Store, AWS, etc.

I love what @benthompson has to say about it
stratechery.com/2021/trump-and…

My take on it is: As a rule of thumb, Social Networks shouldn't censor much, but the lower you go in the stack, the less you should censor. So Apple is worse than Youtube, but AWS is worse than Apple.

However, that's to respect the will of the ppl.

This is an extreme situation: It's to preserve democracy. If you believe it's at risk of a power grab or a civil war, preserving the system is more important than any given elected official.

So deplatforming Parler should not be seen as a slippery slope, but rather as a one off