01-19-2024, 02:37 PM
My opening gambit:
First we need to be more specific with our terms.
'Social Media' is a fairly nebulous term that basically just redefines how we use new technologies to communicate with each other.
Within this concept, there are broadly two types of category; didactive (as in 'influencers' tell you things and have control over what - if any - pushback the ideas they promote receive) and cooperative (as in group conversations, where what - if any - pushback to the ideas promoted is largely decided by the group, and any excessive or overt attempts to control 'the narrative' will lead to splinter groups forming).
Of the first category, some regulation already exists; if your Tik Tok channel 'She Hulk Is Excellent Actually' does not disclose it is wholly endorsed as a paid promotion by Disney® you are already opening yourself to potential lawsuits / fines / penalties.
Of the second category, 'community guidelines' will always see anything too far beyond the group consensus of standards getting whistle blown anyway, because someone always has an axe to grind. In terms of regulation, there should not need to be more than a fairly light touch threat of further penalties for any group going too far, because someone in that group will snitch it out to the authorities for some reason sooner or later.
I'll address the special case of people unable to critically discern truth from bullshit particular susceptibility to social media (eg the demographic who believe a fat bearded man flies round the world dropping presents down chimneys) later, assuming the premise of debate is accurate.
I'm not going to address the sheer ludicrous of the idea anyone even could govern and regulate all social media in a manner that would never cause any harm to anyone though.
First we need to be more specific with our terms.
'Social Media' is a fairly nebulous term that basically just redefines how we use new technologies to communicate with each other.
Within this concept, there are broadly two types of category; didactive (as in 'influencers' tell you things and have control over what - if any - pushback the ideas they promote receive) and cooperative (as in group conversations, where what - if any - pushback to the ideas promoted is largely decided by the group, and any excessive or overt attempts to control 'the narrative' will lead to splinter groups forming).
Of the first category, some regulation already exists; if your Tik Tok channel 'She Hulk Is Excellent Actually' does not disclose it is wholly endorsed as a paid promotion by Disney® you are already opening yourself to potential lawsuits / fines / penalties.
Of the second category, 'community guidelines' will always see anything too far beyond the group consensus of standards getting whistle blown anyway, because someone always has an axe to grind. In terms of regulation, there should not need to be more than a fairly light touch threat of further penalties for any group going too far, because someone in that group will snitch it out to the authorities for some reason sooner or later.
I'll address the special case of people unable to critically discern truth from bullshit particular susceptibility to social media (eg the demographic who believe a fat bearded man flies round the world dropping presents down chimneys) later, assuming the premise of debate is accurate.
I'm not going to address the sheer ludicrous of the idea anyone even could govern and regulate all social media in a manner that would never cause any harm to anyone though.
1 user liked this post: