A frequent topic of discussion on the TWiT network is section 230. Now the Democrats are getting in on the game: tweets.newsbots.eu/ReutersWorl

@x_minus_t My Senator. Would user authentication be an approach social media companies could use to focus attention on the poster?

@grabe I have often thought that Twitter and FB should charge $1 per month (or local equivalent) for people to post on their networks. The free tier would be read-only. That way they can easily ban people by rejecting the credit card.

Content moderation is more difficult, though. Section 230 says that content providers the protection from the posts of the users, but responsible companies should remove illegal content. It is not the bogeyman that these elected officials are saying it is.

@x_minus_t my reason for authention would be to provide responsibility for posts. Rather than hold the social media company responsible, hold the content creator responsible.

Follow

@grabe One of the problems is that the company would then have to keep a copy of your passport/national ID/driver's license on file, creating a privacy nightmare. Parler required a DL and all of that data was stolen by hackers. Plus, some countries might have laws against collecting that level of information.

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 0

@x_minus_t yes, privacy is the issue. If privacy is protected, the service ends up responsible for anonymous inappropriate content

Sign in to participate in the conversation
TWiT.social

A Mastodon instance dedicated to TWiT listeners. Think of a Twitter just for geeks, sharing content with other Mastodon servers all over the world. If you're a TWiT fan, consider this your home! Our TWiT Forums live at TWiT Community. Post conversation starters there. TWiT.social is for quick thoughts, fun pictures, and other ephemera. Keep it clean, keep it friendly. Looking forward to your Toots!