AIBU to think that many of the world's ills would be solved if we regulated websites and social media platforms like publishers?

[martipants]

Am I being unreasonable to think that much of the world's ills would be solved if tech firms and social media platforms were regulated like publishers / newspapers.
Riots in London and elsewhere organised via TikTok, and it's left to local councils and businesses to pick up the costs. People with serious mental health issues can find someone to torture and kill them online and no website owner/platform is held accountable. Misinformation and out right lies published with no repercussions...

I think we need to stop this mentality where we’re all children and the government is the parent and is expected to regulate the shit out of everything every time someone has a bad day tbh. It’s a dangerous precedent. As we are all independent adults, we should be free to make our own choices and say what we think. Like fuck should the government regulate people’s sexual desires or right to protest, regardless of where that leads. The laws we have are fit for purpose (e.g. if you kill somebody it is murder, if your protest turns into a riot that is illegal) and changing them wouldn’t change people’s behaviour, it would just move us closer to a police state.

I would much rather the police and courts spent time stopping rapists, scammers and thieves than that they had to spread themselves even thinner policing what people say online even more than now.

Regulate to whose opinion? What would be considered acceptable or not?

And why cant people just use the brains they were born with instead of blaming everyone else because they have the intelligence of a mosquito

Hello @Preppercornand@PollyBellthank you for your replies. I was wondering what the people who disagree with me are thinking. So my point is not that we should police opinions (we have free speech in the press). My point is specifically about publishing - not about the ability to have opinions or free protest.
I disagree that our current laws in the UK are fit for purpose. For example, TikTok makes money by publishing content via advertising. This content is not produced by them, but IMO they should regulate/moderate their content and be responsible for the content they host if it directly facilitates criminality. That is what newspapers and book publisher's have had to do for 150+ years. At the moment it shoulders none of the responsibility for publishing the TikTok videos that lead to the damage by riots planned on it's platform. At the moment they reap all the benefits and pay none of the consequences. Because they are deemed to be a "platform" and not a "publisher". My argument is that they are indeed publishers and should have to follow the rules of publishers. The rules in the UK still allow for a free press and free speech.

No, policing people's speech on social media would not solve world problems. In fact, only the powerful would have a voice.

@WallaceinAnderlandI guess a wider point I could make (and perhaps more controversial still) is I can see no tangible benefits from Social Media to society.

But you are using social media right now.

The problem is precisely that without media regulations applying to social media platforms, ONLY the powerful have a voice as they can act as puppet masters with impunity. It's not about policing ordinary users' speech at all, it's about making sure a mob that's manipulated by nefarious individuals with shady agendas doesn't drown out the views of the majority. It's about balance, a truly level playing field and fighting disinformation. There has to be a strict standard so that some level of trust in what you see and read can be regained. It's just chaos and noise right now. The very opposite of true freedom of speech.

Yes, you are right. I am not kidding myself this is for any wider social good though. I also think this site is fairly well moderated compared to others.

I disagree. Making SM platforms publishers makes them legally & criminally responsible for their content. I dont think that's correct when they didn't originate it & probably never saw it. If I post some hate speech here, I think that's my crime, not MN's .

I remember a world before social media and it still had loads of problems

I just wonder @Dadalus if given that MN would be profiting from that content and providing a means by which it is disseminated it is only correct they hold some (I am not suggesting all) responsibility.

@Octavia64 yes, absolutely. But I have yet to hear of any widescale benefits to SM and yet I absolutely do hear of widescale problems caused by it.

Well that's a matter of opinion but my answer would be a flat no.

It would certainly be nice if Amazon, Aliexpress, and eBay had to obey the same trading standards regulations that high street stores do rather than flooding the country with illegal electric motorcycles, knives, and unsafe electrical products with zero repercussions.

I could not agree more @SadiraOfTyr