YouGov polling across 5 major EU countries also reveals that 70% of respondents want further action against X if it fails to respond to data privacy and
I’m not talking about from a practical standpoint I’m talking about from a theoretical standpoint.
Given that social media being a form of media where humans socialize with each other is not something that can be banned because humans are intrinsically social creatures and modern technology facilities media based communication.
What we don’t need is social media banned. We need regulation and enforcement and teeth for those regulations.
Almost all of the bad and negative parts of social media are results of companies driving profits and engagement at the cost of everything else, including the well-being of their users (Such as artificially, inflating, negativity and division because that drives more engagement).
Make the platform liable for the hate posted on them.
They have algorithms manipulating what we see, those same algorithms send those messages to us for profit.
Hence the justification form holding them liable for content. Civil suits will destroy them in no time.
That’s an abysmally bad idea. This would be a wet dream for companies like Meta.
Effectively that would lock in the monopoly by huge social media platforms and absolutely no one would be able to try and make alternatives.
That idea would raise the bar for entry into social media to such a degree that only establish platforms can maintain themselves.
Which would make things like Lemmy, anything on the fedaverse, any third-party or fledgling social media platform…etc defunct overnight. And the only options would be existing, abusive, monopolistic, corporate managed platforms.
I say that, in order to save the species, ban all social media, everywhere.
but lemmy :(
You might not realize it, but the Fediverse is social media so a ban would be rather detrimental to this place.
Damn near the entire internet is “social media” but people usually mean “social networking sites”.
That’s literally not possible.
I’m not talking about from a practical standpoint I’m talking about from a theoretical standpoint.
Given that social media being a form of media where humans socialize with each other is not something that can be banned because humans are intrinsically social creatures and modern technology facilities media based communication.
What we don’t need is social media banned. We need regulation and enforcement and teeth for those regulations.
Almost all of the bad and negative parts of social media are results of companies driving profits and engagement at the cost of everything else, including the well-being of their users (Such as artificially, inflating, negativity and division because that drives more engagement).
Make the platform liable for the hate posted on them. They have algorithms manipulating what we see, those same algorithms send those messages to us for profit.
Hence the justification form holding them liable for content. Civil suits will destroy them in no time.
That’s an abysmally bad idea. This would be a wet dream for companies like Meta.
Effectively that would lock in the monopoly by huge social media platforms and absolutely no one would be able to try and make alternatives.
That idea would raise the bar for entry into social media to such a degree that only establish platforms can maintain themselves.
Which would make things like Lemmy, anything on the fedaverse, any third-party or fledgling social media platform…etc defunct overnight. And the only options would be existing, abusive, monopolistic, corporate managed platforms.