nostr:npub1t82mdp37fta2k5ylxgpvqpeecatf449ykdch4txpungqghse66gssdzt9w
> Australia to make social media platforms accountable for the spread of disinformation
As with the link tax stuff, I can see why that's appealing. But with beware regulatory capture.
With any tech regulation like this, key questions to ask are a) how would this affect people running fediverse instances, and b) would it shift the power differential between them and the DataFarms in the right direction?
nostr:npub1t82mdp37fta2k5ylxgpvqpeecatf449ykdch4txpungqghse66gssdzt9w
Like the NZ Harmful Digital Censorship Act, I suspect this proposal might look a lot less favourable in the light of such an analysis. The devil is in the details, I guess.
nostr:npub1t82mdp37fta2k5ylxgpvqpeecatf449ykdch4txpungqghse66gssdzt9w
Another important question to ask about new regulations proposed for social media, in particular; how would I feel about this if was a proposal to regulate news media? It's important not to let our antipathy to the DataFarms blind us to the fact that broad brush social media regulation could apply to SubStack and Medium as well as FB and Titter. Potentially even to HitGub and other non-obvious platforms, depending how the regulation is targeted.
nostr:npub1t82mdp37fta2k5ylxgpvqpeecatf449ykdch4txpungqghse66gssdzt9w
Here's a good example
"[DIA] has today released a discussion document for consultation which aims to make it less common for people to see harmful and illegal content."
Hamish Cardwell, 2023
Sounds reasonable, right? But what if NORML and other drug law reform groups had their own fedi instances? Or any activist group that sometimes engages in Direct Action that's technically illegal to fight much greater wrongs (drug prohibition, carbon emissions etc).
