Thread by @bgurley

While many in Washington seem quite determined to "regulate" social media platforms, the "how" part of the execution is proving to be quite difficult. Both this WP piece, & another from Techdirt highlight the many challenges (cont). techdirt.com/articles/20211… washingtonpost.com/technology/202…

For me, the last thing we want is to hold the platform accountable for determining what is "misinformation." Why? 1) "Truth" is very hard to discern, especially on the issues that are most discussed. This is WHY they are being discussed. No one cares if I post 2+5=6. (cont)

2) Having the platforms "decide" what is right or wrong, actually gives them more power, not less. We have already seen multiple examples in the past year where leading UGC platforms have blocked posts incorrectly or prematurely. wsj.com/articles/faceb… (cont)

3) Any agency official that would oversee "compliance" of proper "blocking" would bring enormous bias to the table in their evaluation. If you disagree, just imagine the party you don't support being in charge of the oversight! (cont)

4) As many great scientists have already opined, the scientific process is actually dependent on open debate of ideas in the public forum. This back and forth process is actually what leads to progress and new discovery. Silencing new ideas early is a really bad idea. (cont)

I am a huge fan of the @benthompson argument that the proper solution is actually "more speech" not less. If people object to a POV, give them a forum to air that objection. Even though no one asked (😀), here is my "draft proposal" on how said platforms could attack this issue.

Allow all major media outlets to "register" to be a "trusted source" on the platform. Part of the process would be to outline the editorial process they use in their work (which could be disclosed). These "trusted sources" would then have special badges and privileges.

One such privilege would be the right to "tag" a popular post as something they disagree with or believe is "misinformation." The platforms could publish a list of the popular or trending posts so that the media partners could focus on those that have meaningful reach.

These "official challenges" would then live alongside the questioned post (rather than the post being removed). This uses "more speech" to aid in debate, vs using censorship to curtail ideas. If a single post is challenged by 10 different sources, readers would now see that.

If the best media outlets in the world are not interested in such a responsibility, then perhaps the whole problem is overblown (either it matters or it doesn't). From my POV, the platforms should act fast with their own solution (such as this) before they have one given to them.

This type solution would be a great 1st step. Quickly, we would have tons of data about which posters are most challenged, wether there is broad support in the challenges, & the challenge history of each "arbiter." We would also learn more along the way reading the debate.

Platform companies need a "platform" solution. There is no scalable or reasonable way to simply insist these companies have a divine insight on "truth." It will never work. Let the community do the work, and we can all learn more along the way. "More speech" is the right answer.