If these guidelines are implemented, I predict "Town Square" apps like Twitter will decline in favor of sub-networks like Discord or Substack.
> We will protect any speech that is protected under the First Amendment.
This will likely include speech that people and advertisers find objectionable, and will consequently want to disassociate from. There is a lot of First Amendment speech that people don't want to have shouted at them when they're trying just trying to go about their lives, or keep up with the media. Think about what HN would be like if the mods allowed all First Amendment speech in the comments.
> We will double down on our authenticity rules and procedures.
It's not clear if this requires people to use their real names + verify their identities, but if so it's dangerous for free speech. Pseudonyms can be a valuable way of enabling people to speak freely. Forcing people to use their own names also increases the risk of their being targeted by harassing speech (which defenders will claim is protected by the 1st Amendment). Again, people will likely leave for more curated communities or anonymous communities rather than endure it.
> We will provide users with the tools they need to curate content for themselves. For instance, we will give users the ability to hide or delete offensive comments to their posts.
I have these tools available for SMS and email, but it's exhausting to manage, and they've been rendered useless by the sheer volume of spam. For the average user, this is forcing them to take on a lot of work to protect themselves from spam and harassment. Many will just quit rather than add another channel they have to filter and manage.
If a "public square" (and I'm not convinced Twitter is a public square in the sense people say) becomes unruly and fails to provide a well regulated commons, people will depart for communities that regulate the way they want (like Hacker News or amenable Discord Servers)
> We will protect any speech that is protected under the First Amendment.
This will likely include speech that people and advertisers find objectionable, and will consequently want to disassociate from. There is a lot of First Amendment speech that people don't want to have shouted at them when they're trying just trying to go about their lives, or keep up with the media. Think about what HN would be like if the mods allowed all First Amendment speech in the comments.
> We will double down on our authenticity rules and procedures.
It's not clear if this requires people to use their real names + verify their identities, but if so it's dangerous for free speech. Pseudonyms can be a valuable way of enabling people to speak freely. Forcing people to use their own names also increases the risk of their being targeted by harassing speech (which defenders will claim is protected by the 1st Amendment). Again, people will likely leave for more curated communities or anonymous communities rather than endure it.
> We will provide users with the tools they need to curate content for themselves. For instance, we will give users the ability to hide or delete offensive comments to their posts.
I have these tools available for SMS and email, but it's exhausting to manage, and they've been rendered useless by the sheer volume of spam. For the average user, this is forcing them to take on a lot of work to protect themselves from spam and harassment. Many will just quit rather than add another channel they have to filter and manage.
If a "public square" (and I'm not convinced Twitter is a public square in the sense people say) becomes unruly and fails to provide a well regulated commons, people will depart for communities that regulate the way they want (like Hacker News or amenable Discord Servers)