This is an issue that is only going to grow more serious, & glad to see some attention to it here. Critics from the left claim that social networking platforms offer profiling & recommendation mechanisms that allow groups to spread their propaganda to unwitting users. Critics from the right complain that they are the target of shadow banning. These social networking platforms depend on selling targeted advertising to stay profitable, while at the same time some form of moderation has been needed since the days of Usenet. -- llywrch (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only the walled-garden social networks depend on advertising. The Fediverse (which includes servers running Pixelfed, PeerTube, Mastodon (software)) generally has per-server moderation by the community running that server. And the Fediverse is certainly at risk from these sorts of legislative attacks. Of course, the walled-garden networks currently dominate in terms of numbers of users, like Britannica dominated in the early days of Wikipedia. We'll find out over the coming years how much bigger numbers of people appreciate interoperability, which effectively provides freedom of association (as opposed to walled-garden-ism). A diverse ecosystem is more likely to survive legislative attacks than a monolithic system. Boud (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The internet is far too broad for a one-size-fits-all rule about user responsibility and website operator responsibility. It is understandable that on Wikipedia our primary concern is that we can regulate ourselves and have largely volunteer moderation—which we do exceptionally well. Yes, our articles contain BLP violations and vandalism can last hours or longer. But there is simply no comparison to us and Facebook or even a typical large forum. We don't have large subcommunities promoting harmful medical misinformation or encouraging members to kill themselves; racist hate speech almost never lasts more than a few minutes; and so on.
  However, the anti-Section 230 arguments are often overlooked. See Carrie Goldberg's reasoning or watch The Most Hated Man on the Internet: revenge porn and incitement to violence is largely allowed to continue under the rule. It is perfectly possible to outlaw this activity without threatening Wikimedia.
  To redirect the subject to a "debate" around what contexts it is acceptable to tweet an image containing a Nazi swastika, as the media does, is grossly unhelpful. Freedom of speech is important: we need freedom to make information accessible even if it is against the U.S. government's military and political interests. But freedom from harassment, violence and emotional distress is hugely important too. — Bilorv (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake for omitting personal harassment; I was trying to be balanced about the issues. That is a very important matter, but one that I do not see will be easily resolved -- due to anonymity & flexibility in identity -- if ever. --- llywrch (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, Llywrch, this was supposed to be a general comment rather than a response to you specifically (and definitely not meant to be a criticism). — Bilorv (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]