The last few years have given me some clarity on where I stand on the topic of internet censorship. I was a bit wishy-washy on it for a while because the downsides of both are so bad, but for tech platforms like X and Facebook, I think I finally have an opinion.
- The platforms should make all legal speech available to anyone who wants to see it.
- They should also make it easy for users to shape the experience they want to have.
In other words, the platforms shouldn’t filter reality in any way other than legality. But they should let users do whatever filtering they want.
This does two things:
- It allows anyone (researchers, for example) to see reality as it is, not as the platform wants to pretend it is.
- It allows people to only see the content they want to see.
What exactly are platforms?
This forces us to ask what a platform actually is. Is it a town square? Is it a small neighborhood community? Is it a public bulletin board?
Platforms need to know which of these they are, and make their choice know to the public. I run a private community for example, and I plainly state that we’re there for civil exchange of ideas, and that certain things won’t be tolerated. It’s gone extremely well.
But what is X? What is Facebook? The confusion is the problem.
Server-side reality, client-side filtering
I think ultimately the solution is going to move towards the balance I gave in the beginning. Raw on the platform, with filters on the customer side.
Platforms will implement their own filters, and they already have with some success, but I think AI-powered digital assistants will be the major breakthrough here.
Rather than relying on server/platform-side filters, people will be shielded from language and opinions they don’t want to see by their own personal AIs. They will understand their principal better than anyone, and they’ll create a view of reality that they want to see.
That will have its own set of problems, but I think that’s where it’s going.