Techdirt Podcast Episode 287: Regulating Amplification Is A Lot Harder Than You Think
from the signal-boost dept
Even among people who recognize the problems with holding platforms liable for user speech, there’s an understandable temptation to treat the act of content amplification and recommendation differently, since that’s something the platforms do themselves. While you can see the logic to this idea, the fact is it’s just as difficult and fraught with problems as other intermediary liability proposals. This week, we’re joined by frequent guest Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center, to discuss her recent paper on the subject and why regulating amplification isn’t the simple solution it might sound like.
Separately, this is the first time we’ve had a sponsor for the podcast! The Pessimists Aloud podcast is sponsoring today’s episode. It’s a new offering from the Pessimists Archive Twitter feed, which finds old articles that are skeptical of technology, which in retrospect turned out to be incorrect. The podcast takes those articles and has them artistically read (in an old-timey voice) aloud. We think fans of Techdirt will certainly enjoy the Pessimists Aloud podcast.
Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via Apple Podcasts, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.
Filed Under: amplification, content moderation, daphne keller, podcast
Comments on “Techdirt Podcast Episode 287: Regulating Amplification Is A Lot Harder Than You Think”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Distributor liability for defamation (amplification) is a well-established legal principle.
Of course, someone who defames a person has just created a hostile working enivronment against the target, who can sue the employer and "cancel" the bully that way.
Re: Re:
Not in the US.
Re: Re:
Bless your heart
Re:
saying it over and over doesn’t make it true, Jhon
Just a note… in the RSS feed, the enclosure tag uses http URLs instead of https URLs.
Is there a special reason for not going to HTTPS?
Re: Re:
RSS is text. http or https
Bullshit distinction
Seriously "amplification" is just bullshit of the blatantly engineered "techlash" to imply that it is the new and scary tech that is hand tailored towards controlling our minds. Just stick with Wholesome Old Media(TM) who wouldn’t lie to you*! Recommendation is what is it in reality.
Re: Bullshit distinction
It’s marketing scheme. All that sponsored content stuff nobody reads.
What about podcasting with pumped up RSS
Somehow all the social media bar fighting is allowing the podcast indexer like iTunes and the rest to quietly burn content at will. Change rules, kick out creators and claim "webcast" is their domain.
No big deal. RSS is podcasting, itunes is webcasting. Only one serves the content creator, podcasting.
Enter Adam Curry – index for free speech as in your ‘cast is your business and I am here to help you make it work and money is the creators not the tool helping your "show" get heard.
I am not good at all the platforms vs protocol thing but I think this is an example.
https://schoolofpodcasting.com/preserving-podcasting-as-a-platform-for-free-speech-adam-curry-and-podcasting-2-0/
The father of podcasting may be right for this time in history.