For me I would hold the social media companies more to account when it comes to hate speech and harassment online and force social media companies to do more to stop online harassment and hate speech.

  • Semperverus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Can you elaborate on how exactly we would hold them accountable? What mechanisms precisely would you use without violating reasonable expectations of privacy (and no, posting online doesn’t mean you should have your real identity tracked or exposed just because the post is publicly facing like on Twitter, YouTube comments, reddit, and especially Lemmy.)

    • GreyTechnician@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      As in banning the accounts that are constantly being used to harass people and perhaps maybe ip banning them if they continue to try doing this.

      • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        IP bans usually don’t work well on the modern internet. Many ISPs use CG-NAT with very rapidly changing IPs shared by many users. Places like college dorms are the worst.

        Looking up which accounts stem from which IP is also a moderate invasion of privacy.

        The usual issues with “banning the accounts that are constantly being used to harass people” are:

        • Clearly defining harassment vs legitimate discussion

        • Figuring out who’s actually being unreasonable - is one party being baited into responding, then that response is reported?

        • Having enough staffing

        • taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Looking up which accounts stem from which IP is also a moderate invasion of privacy.

          Not really. You can store the IP only when you actually have ban-worthy content from an account and then compare that to the IP for subsequent requests to enforce the ban. The IPs of everyone communicating with your service are required for that very communication so they will be on your system anyway and you are only really required to store it for the person who already demonstrated ban-worthy behaviour in which case this is the minimal step you can take as far as privacy invasion goes (as opposed to e.g. trying to figure out their identity from their IP) if you want to enforce the ban at all.

          I agree that IP bans just aren’t effective any more though due to CGNAT and IPv6 Privacy Extensions among other things.

    • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Realistically, the law forcing platforms themselves to moderate better is probably our best bet, but even that is a sloooow drag.

      Look at Twitter. In Germany alone there are hundreds of cases of hate speech (probably beyond a thousand now) that the courts could use to really, and I mean really hammer down on Twitter.

      All of these cases combined could amount to fines in the billions, making one single country capable of destroying that platform.

      That’s old news by now, and nothing happened. So… yeah.

    • Kissaki@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      They said hold the platform accountable, they didn’t mention holding the poster accountable.

      without violating reasonable expectations of privacy

      I don’t see what needs to or is implied to change regarding privacy merely from increased accountability - and especially not the platforms as a whole.