[ExI] pay to not play
sjatkins at protonmail.com
Sun Dec 4 19:52:38 UTC 2022
Why would anyone have the right to pay to remove a post on Twitter or any large reach social media platform? They would be paying to make that content not visible to everyone else on the platform that would otherwise have seen it. This gives those with the deepest pockets the ability to limit what everyone else can know from use of that platform. This gives the deepest pockets the effective ability to silence others on the platform. Who has the deepest pockets of all? Government.
As far as the payment being for squelching the content for a limited time this would not make it better if the squelched content had time sensitive value. For instance squelching the Hunter Biden laptop story until just after the election where the content might be germane for what most people consider an important decision would not make it ok that it wasn't squelched forever.
------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, December 4th, 2022 at 7:26 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Hey cool, idea!
> The information coming out now about Twitter shows a bunch of requests to take down information. Twitter complied, using Twitter’s resources, for which advertisers pay (that’s Twitter’s revenue stream.) Alternative: have people who request a post be removed pay to have it removed. Keep a record of what was removed and when it was removed. Payments for removal would have an expiration, after which the paid-to-remove post would go up.
> Then the content moderation would be effectively done, not by paid professionals at Twitter’s expense, not by advertisers, not even by users, but by paying Twitter customers. That could make a buttload of money! Sheesh that infamous laptop alone could be worth billions, perhaps the first trillion dollar news item.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat