I’m not sure what data-speech you personally think should or shouldn’t be legal, but I know what kinds a lot of people argue should be illegal: things ranging all the way from videographic records of child abuse (CSAM) to unauthorized copyrighted material to libel to hate speech to blasphemy and plenty else not mentioned. I think some of it is deservedly illegal (e.g. CSAM) and some of it shouldn’t be (e.g. blasphemy).
My position is that in a pluralistic society there will be a variety of speech that people won’t want to see for various reasons, and they have a right not to see it. They have a right to have tools that allow them to not see things they don’t want to see. And government censorship of speech should be limited to the absolute bare minimum of speech that causes material harm, and legal responsibility for those rare instances of illegal speech should fall upon the speaker and not the platform or carrier.
The only thing I’m talking about is social Media companies moderating their platforms so there’s zero tolerance on illegal communication. The currently legislated laws in a region.
Currently, in North America, social media companies moderate themselves…typically with user reporting and automation. There’s an hours long gap between infractions and action.
This could be eliminated with proper moderation. I believe this is the bare minimum. The current status quo is the Wild West…children and adults alike are bombarded with illegal content each time they use social media, or the internet at large.
I’m not sure what data-speech you personally think should or shouldn’t be legal, but I know what kinds a lot of people argue should be illegal: things ranging all the way from videographic records of child abuse (CSAM) to unauthorized copyrighted material to libel to hate speech to blasphemy and plenty else not mentioned. I think some of it is deservedly illegal (e.g. CSAM) and some of it shouldn’t be (e.g. blasphemy).
My position is that in a pluralistic society there will be a variety of speech that people won’t want to see for various reasons, and they have a right not to see it. They have a right to have tools that allow them to not see things they don’t want to see. And government censorship of speech should be limited to the absolute bare minimum of speech that causes material harm, and legal responsibility for those rare instances of illegal speech should fall upon the speaker and not the platform or carrier.
The only thing I’m talking about is social Media companies moderating their platforms so there’s zero tolerance on illegal communication. The currently legislated laws in a region.
Currently, in North America, social media companies moderate themselves…typically with user reporting and automation. There’s an hours long gap between infractions and action.
This could be eliminated with proper moderation. I believe this is the bare minimum. The current status quo is the Wild West…children and adults alike are bombarded with illegal content each time they use social media, or the internet at large.