I’m actually ok with this, if it only applies to the biggest social media companies (10million+ UK users) who have algorithmically ranked content. And it should apply to what gets weighted in the feeds, not whether the content exists on the site at all.
I think big tech companies shouldn’t be held responsible for all user generated content on their site, but they should be held responsible for the content they actively promote via the feeds, if they do so algorithmically. I think this article (from a US perspective) presents a good framework for moderation. The more you are a “dumb pipe”, the less moderation you should have, and the more you actively make user-facing decisions about content, the more oversight and moderation you should have. And, if you are a small provider (like the fediverse 😜) then you should be exempt from these regulations to encourage competition.
We have public service broadcasters who are regulated by Ofcom. It’s not perfect - Ofcom should be strengthened, made more politically independent and should have much more teeth, and they’ve been woeful in dealing with GBeebies - but the regulated public service broadcasters are among the most trusted news providers in the UK.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that any kind of restriction is a slippery slope. And I know the public service broadcasters are not perfect, there are problems of political interference that need to be dealt with, and of course they don’t appeal to everyone. But they are also among the most trusted news outlets?
I’m also sympathetic to the idea that the government is solving this the wrong way round. That they are trying to fix this on the supply side when really it’s a demand problem - people just don’t like the regulated news providers enough so they don’t get promoted by the feeds on social media. But that argument presumes that the tech companies’ feeds are purely responding to consumer demand; social media companies are now mostly owned by people who want to, or are careless about, interfering with our democracy and promoting particular ideologies. So I think the era of trusting that whatever the algorithms promote is just based on what we want is over.
Zombie@feddit.uk 11 hours ago
Oh I’ve read about this one!
They can call the department that determines who’s trusted the Ministry of Truth.
And then why even bother regulating the news when they could just produce the news themselves? Then we’ll all know we’re getting official, government approved, facts and figures.
What could possibly go wrong?
Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app 10 hours ago
We do produce the news ourselves: the BBC is, in reality, state media. BBC news is, in reality, state news.
I’m kinda agnostic on this one. Keeping the influence of Musk/Murdoch/et al out of our media is a good thing. Keeping incendiary propaganda produced by foreign powers, is also a good thing. Regulating media to a minimum standard and removing media that doesn’t conform is a good thing.
But, it will be managed by people and they’re shit, they’re biased, and their judgement is garbage… Worse it will be managed by Ofcom, and they’re even worse: see GB News.
So on balance: fuck ‘em. Once they prove they’re proficient at managing the media they already do, I might trust them to manage more.
Tiresia@slrpnk.net 9 hours ago
Elect a Tory/Reform government.
Tory/Reform government declares Musk/Murdoch trusted news and independent local journalists non-trusted.
???
A good thing.