So should there be a special tax on "megaphones" like Twitter, Facebook or YouTube? What exactly is the legal framework under witch these companies could be scrutinized? Normally the manufacturer of megaphones does not get sued when a person uses it to promote hatred on a village square.
I think the megaphone is thus more of a metaphor than it is an analogy. Or at least, like most analogies, it breaks down under even the lightest pressure. For it to be an analogy, it'd have to be a megaphone manufacturer that also brings the audience together. Maybe Facebook is the megaphone AND the village square AND then some.
That’s what’s challenging about this situation. We’re experiencing a fairly new problem. It hasn’t before been possible for a member of society to communicate with all other members of society at the same time, nor has it been possible for a member of society to get addicted on a curated feed of random (sometimes anonymous) folks spreading their ideas globally.
All of these things seem new to me:
- Global, direct communication with all members of society.
- Addictive design patterns in software.
- AI-curated news feeds based on increasing engagement.
- Anonymous conversations.
Since it’s new, society doesn’t have frameworks to think about this kind of stuff yet.
>That’s what’s challenging about this situation. We’re experiencing a fairly new problem. It hasn’t before been possible for a member of society to communicate with all other members of society at the same time, nor has it been possible for a member of society to get addicted on a curated feed of random (sometimes anonymous) folks spreading their ideas globally.
This comment could have been taken more or less word for word from the diary of a monk who lived in the 1500s.
I think scale matters, though. In the 1500s (through much of the 1900s, even), most people were still mainly exposed to the viewpoints of people and groups who were physically local to them. Your local newspaper and (more recently) local TV news was a product of local attitudes and opinions. Certainly all of those people were not a member of your "tribe", but many were, and there were limits as to how far off the beaten path you could go.
If you had some wacky, non-mainstream ideas, you self-moderated, because you knew most of the people around you didn't have those ideas, and you'd suffer social consequences if you kept bringing them up and shouting them from the rooftops. Even if you decided you'd still like to do some rooftop-shouting, your reach was incredibly limited, and most people would just ignore you.
Today you can be exposed to viewpoints from every culture and every walk of life, usually with limited enough context that you'll never get the full picture of what these other people are about. If you have crazy ideas, no matter how crazy, you can find a scattered, distributed group of people who think like you do, and that will teach you that it's ok to believe -- and scream about -- things that are false, because other people in the world agree with you. And the dominant media platforms on the internet know that controversy drives page views more than anything else, so they amplify this sort of thing.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that abortion providers in Texas can challenge a state law banning most abortions after six weeks, allowing them to sue at least some state officials in federal court despite the procedural hurdles imposed by the law’s unusual structure.
But the Supreme Court refused to block the law in the meantime, saying that lower courts should consider the matter.
"So, essentially, the Supreme Court left the law in effect. We were expecting to possibly see them limit the enforcement of it because that was the biggest concern that Supreme Court, Supreme Court justices seemed to have. And that enforcement, of course, is allowing private citizens to sue, under the law, anyone who aids and abeits an abortion for at least $10,000 damages, if won. And so, that's where it kind of was being targeted today. And the Supreme Court essentially put that back on the U.S. District Court, allowing that lawsuit to resume to determine the constitutionality of the law."
Or TLDR they left it to the states. Can't wait to see how the states run with that concept.
"ruled that it's okay" != "left the law in effect"
"U.S. District Court" != "the states"
Whatever a state statute may or may not say about a defense, applicable federal constitutional defenses always stand available when properly asserted. See U. S. Const., Art. VI. Many federal constitutional rights are as a practical matter asserted typically as defenses to state-law claims, not in federal pre-enforcement cases like this one.
