Post #3389960
2026-06-17 13:34 UTC
@Newhereish@mastodon.social @angusm@mastodon.social Agreed but we should keep in mind that social media companies make money from controversy so they are not at all likely to police bad behavior unless they are published.
For example, during the Sean Combs trial an incredible amount of AI slop depicting celebrities having sex Diddy garnered YouTube millions of page view. Clearly YouTube should police this sort of thing, but hey, millions of page views.
I think the problem with the "public space" philosophy, which is well meaning, is ignores the fact that social media companies are not public and do not act in the public's interest. They act in their stock holder's financial interests.
Replies (1)
-
@Newhereish@mastodon.social 2026-06-17 14:21
@gbsills@social.vivaldi.net @angusm@mastodon.social Right, so we apply regulations to make them act as a public square, and if they refuse, we nationalize them and bring them under public ownership where we can use state power to make it a public square. The whole "AI-slop/misinformation/infotainment" thing is a lost cause, has always been a lost cause. That it is now here in a new way doesn't make it any different from old yellow journalism in the papers.