Facebook PixelHow can online platforms do right by people regarding censorship while also surviving government pressure?
Brainstorming
Tour
Brainstorming
Brainstorming
Create newCreate new
EverythingEverything
ChallengesChallenges
IdeasIdeas
Guide
TourRulesAbout
Challenge

How can online platforms do right by people regarding censorship while also surviving government pressure?

Image credit: Open Rights Group

Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savic Oct 29, 2022
Please leave the feedback on this challenge
Necessity

Is the problem still unsolved?

Conciseness

Is it concisely described?

Bounty for the best solution

Provide a bounty for the best solution

Bounties attract serious brainpower to the challenge.

Currency *
Bitcoin
Who gets the Bounty *
Distribution
Democratic governments shouldn't be able or want to control your speech, but it seems that's what's happening. People, including presidents, get banned from social media platforms for expressing their views.
Elon Musk recently bought Twitter and plans to stand up for freedom of speech. He announced that "the bird is freed". That didn't sit well with the EU commissioner:
How do online platforms do right by the people but also avoid legal (and covert) actions by powerful entities who might not like that everyone should have a voice?
censorshiponline platformlaw
3
Creative contributions

Transparent censorship

Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savic Oct 29, 2022
How about transparent censorship? Hide censored posts from the reader but let them know which entities/laws are responsible for them not seeing the content.
For example "this tweet is not visible to you due to <link to law>". That way people can direct their dissatisfaction toward the right source instead of hating the messenger.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Miloš Stanković
Miloš Stankovića year ago
Linking in a VPN service there would also do the trick, right? If France doesn't allow you to use an app, well you could state why it has been censored and leave a breadcrumb trail to a VPN so you can check it out from a less encroaching country.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savica year ago
Miloš Stanković yes. First make people see who the oppressor is so that they can then find ways of freeing themselves
Please leave the feedback on this idea

Forming a social community strong enough to fight all battles

Loading...
jnikola
jnikola Nov 07, 2022
Build a community of all men stronger than governments. Make the uncensored content available for people paying the subscription. I explained this idea in more detail in this contribution. The money earned would be money for legal battles.
Why would it work?
In today's world, nobody gets huge attention unless you pay for it. Influencers earn money and get the attention of lots of people by providing them with private information (photos, videos, stories), entertaining people by making them laugh or educating them, or they earn the "blue mark" by third-party fame (actors, politicians). In the real world, people get attention through their talents or by becoming public figures, both providing similar things to social media influencers. They all pay the price of having the influence.
To have access to the influential people and their contents mentioned above, we also need to pay the price. Either we pay tickets or subscriptions to watch concerts, movies, series, TV shows, buy the newspapers and magazines to read about new trends and happenings, or we pay taxes to get led, protected and influenced by politicians and governments.
In that context, it makes sense to pay for something, but expect something in return. Pay the subscription to access the uncensored community backed by people and their MONEY.
I consider this to be a double edged sword that could easily backfire, but more about it you can read in this thread.
Please leave the feedback on this idea

Disincentivize censorships by going against the grain

Loading...
Miloš Stanković
Miloš Stanković Nov 07, 2022
These massive platforms like Twitter could punish governments for trying to censor. Having a valve that would be activated when censorship is enforced by a country.
Meaning that the platform's algorithm would push the very content the government was trying to censor. Heavily. Spam it. Especially to those people in countries surrounding the one that enforced censorship or who have connections to the country but are located elsewhere or who have VPNs.
Making the whole idea behind censorship counterproductive.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savica year ago
Such platforms could be outlawed or otherwise sabotaged out of existence
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Miloš Stanković
Miloš Stankovića year ago
Darko Savic If the whole of the West relies on Elon Musk to sustain the communications of Ukraine's military in the war they've invested so much in, I think he could do it. They would need to shoot down his satellites, right?
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savica year ago
Miloš Stanković anyone can be made to change their mind about anything
Please leave the feedback on this idea

Add your creative contribution

0 / 200

Added via the text editor

Sign up or

or

Guest sign up

* Indicates a required field

By using this platform you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

General comments

Loading...
Povilas S
Povilas Sa year ago
Can you maybe give an example of how someone was banned from social media solely for expressing their views? I mean an example of the post for which they were banned. There should be some solid reason for this, I believe, like propaganda or defamation.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savica year ago
Povilas S Jordan Peterson was banned for posting this:
His response:

Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savica year ago
Initially, Elon's plan was for Twitter to form a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints. "No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes."
To which someone replied "Facebook has a had a fairly diverse oversight board and both the left and the right are still upset at them. Losing game."
Elon's direction then shifted toward: "Being able to select which version of Twitter you want is probably better, much as it would be for a movie maturity rating. The rating of the tweet itself could be self-selected, then modified by user feedback."
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Darko Savic
Darko Savica year ago
Then there is stuff like this:

Please leave the feedback on this idea
Loading...
Povilas S
Povilas Sa year ago
Darko Savic In the case of Jordan Peterson's post, it was a violation of Twitter rules (internal). Governmental regulations are a different case. It's all tangled up in the problem of this challenge. There are ethics/morality, law, and freedom of speech. It's a complex phenomenon.
Maybe we should dissect these aspects and work on each of them separately to tackle the problem. Virtual bullying is usually (at least to an extent) forbidden by the internal laws of any social media platform. Propaganda (false information with the aim for personal/corporational or governmental gains) usually also, again, at least to an extent, or if it's not, then it should be.
The demand to prohibit Russian channels is mostly due to this reason, I believe, although it shouldn't be a demand, the platform should make efforts to distinguish false and truthful information regardless of the source posting it. But this is complicated. Therefore it's easier to ban the source entirely in some cases.
If the platform is operating in a certain country, its owners will always have to deal with the laws of that country, unless the platform is not exactly legit/covert, etc. (e.g. Pirate Bay or WikiLeaks). In some countries, certain laws will be more prominent/higher than others or in more extreme cases even non-existing. In the US, freedom of speech is legally and culturally highly expressed, therefore it's easy for the platforms established there to build their internal laws around it. In the EU, principles like personal data protection seem to be more prominent.
From a moral point of view, one can argue whether speaking anything you want (including hateful speech and lies) does more good or harm to the people in general rather than limited speech with fewer lies and insults. I think the problem basically boils down to this balance if you will.
Please leave the feedback on this idea