Twitter, Reddit, and Internet Association filed an amicus brief late yesterday in support of a lawsuit filed last year by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, the Brennan Center for Justice, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP on behalf of plaintiffs Doc Society and International Documentary Association, challenging rules that require nearly all visa applicants to register their social media handles with the U.S. government and connected policies permitting the retention and dissemination of that information.
The brief argues that the social media registration requirement and connected policies “unquestionably chill a vast quantity of speech” and harm the First Amendment rights of their users, particularly those who use pseudonymous handles to discuss political, controversial, or otherwise sensitive issues on the platforms.
This has bad idea written all over it, but that has never stopped any government from implementing tech-related policy. This won’t be an issue for average joes around the world – many western countries have visa-free travel to the US anyway through things like the ESTA program – but it will be for people from repressive regimes.
A neurologist friend of mine was telling me about how he considered being an active Facebook user as a very crude pre-indicator of Alzheimer’s these days.
Then I came up with this totally unrealistic and weird idea: Require individuals to choose between the right to vote, and being a social media user.
What would be the effects of such an arrangement? What do you think about it?
hdjhfds,
How so?
What would be the purpose in making them exclusive? I don’t get it. Is it to punish them or inferring that people on social media aren’t qualified to vote?
IMHO everyone should be entitled to vote, including ex-convicts. Some states bar people with criminal records from voting, but disallowing them representation can result in severe biases for some offices that shouldn’t even be criminalized in the first place. Given that racial profiling is so blatant in law enforcement, this can lead to life-long systemic hardships and elimination of voting rights for different races & ethnicities.
The argument is that CURRENT Facebook users have a markedly lower IQ than general population.
It can be a culturally biased observation, as here (in Turkey) young generations abandoned Facebook in favor of instagram, twitter, tiktok and whatnot. This observation is not based on hard data though. It is merely an anecdotal observation I have been hearing from more and more of my 40-something friends. So, if Facebook usage is associated with being 60+, the “CRUDE PRE-INDICATOR of Alzheimer’s” point may have some merit. But it must be researched over and over, and I’m gonna repeat again, the idea is a weird and unrealistic one, which will not be more than a thought exercise.
Assuming such an arrangement is made though, a segment of population more vulnerable to fake news could be prevented from affecting the political system.
It can also reduce the influence of alt-right and alt-left echo chambers developing on social media.
And no one can accuse zuckerboy or Russian spies from messing with American politics anymore.
On the other hand, it would amount to a restriction of the freedom of expression.
What do you guys think potential consequences of such a rule would be?
Assuming FB users are older and have a lesser IQ (of which I am not convinced),
“It can be a culturally biased observation, as here (in Turkey) young generations abandoned Facebook in favor of instagram, twitter, tiktok and whatnot.”
Do you really think that watching short video clips of nothingness (TikTok), endless pictures of showing off to strangers on Instagram, or angry texting at people you don’t know (Twitter) shows signs of more intelligence?
I personally think that people (like you), who come up with fantastically stupid arguments to prevent or remove other people’s right to vote, should be the ones who have their right to vote removed.
Yeah, great and solid argument. Thank you for your contribution.
yeah, elitist arguments, in favor of denying other people’s right to vote, stop being fun when it is YOU the one being consider for removal from the voting list, aren’t they?
Thanks for providing another data point on how it is impossible to engage in civilized argumentation on social media, without saying “you you you”.
Oh, please. Spare me.
There is nothing “civilized” about your argument, which is basically electoral eugenics.
hdjhfds,
1. Whether there is a correlation or not (I’d expect to see hard data to back the claim), I don’t see any reason at all to use social media membership to infer intelligence rather than actually using a real IQ test. You’ll always find individuals who contradict the stereotypes.
2. Democracy is about everyone having a say in their own governance. Regardless of whether you accurately assess voter intelligence, ruling against universal suffrage would surely lead to elitism (this is arguably the goal of those who are trying to make voting harder).
We don’t let people younger than 18 vote, do we? Why? It is mostly about their inability to make rational and informed decisions. (And this reductio ad absurdum also applies with your first point, you’ll always see a 12 years old fella who is more reasonable than someone currently allowed to vote. So the rules are about general populations, rather than exceptional individuals, right?)
If there is correlation between old age (or another variable such as social media use) and an inability to make informed decisions, (and yes, that correlation should be based on hard data rather than some stupid rant) why do we rule that possibility out?
Is democracy about everyone having a say in their own governance, or is it about everyone CAPABLE OF MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS having a say in their own governance? Dahl says the first view applies, while Lipset&Rokkan and some works of Rawls support the second.
hdjhfds,
Interesting. Maybe you can argue that 18 is too high. IMHO high school could be an appropriate time to introduce people to voting, since that’s when we learn about civics and whatnot. But the problem is if you don’t have any cutoff whatsoever parents & legal guardians will end up using children as proxies for their own interests rather than as truly independent persons. Practicalities demand that we draw a line somewhere unless you actually want to allow preschool children to vote too? But I think that’s too extreme.
Because even if the data proves they’re statistically correlated, it’s still flawed to rely on indirect criteria. Say people from certain neighborhoods or social media platforms, own certain phones, eat certain foods, etc are statistically correlated to a higher IQ, it does not follow that we should be using any indirect properties to determine who’s allowed to vote. If we actually did this it would result in a new form of gerrymandering where one could mathematically model the election winners through careful selection of voting eligibility. Let’s just take that idea off the table now
Alfman,
+1
So we all accept there should be lines to be drawn. We can therefore have a civilized conversation about where those lines should run,
69% of Americans use Facebook. They Facebook users ARE the general population.
So apropos of nothing then, or is there any actual basis for that? Ideally, anything beyond “there are stupid people on Facebook; therefore, if you’re on Facebook, you must be a stupid person”? That’s just tautological sophistry, barely a step above “All men are mortal; Socrates is mortal; therefore all men are Socrates.”
And…? You do realize that “instagram, twitter, tiktok and whatnot” are also social media, right? They’re distinct from Facebook only in the “same shit, different pile” sense, how is using those system any kind of indicator of superior intelligence?
Incidentally, that also means your solution would exclude both the old & the young from voting – since both groups use social media, just preferring different networks. So, in effect, no one would be allowed to vote? Or all future elections would just be decided by the Ted Kaczynskis of the world? Because if you exclude all users of social media from voting, that’s what left. Your criteria, if applied honestly, would even exclude yourself, since commenting here arguably counts as using social media.
> young generations abandoned Facebook in favor of instagram, twitter, tiktok and whatnot
Is that “whatnot” meaning “other things in general”? Or is there some new app called “WhatNot” piggybacking on the success of “WhatsApp”?
While I agree with everything you’ve written @Alfman (I’d even argue those incarcerated deserve a vote), there’s still an interesting question here. It reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s Nobel Prize speech (altered by me, in case that’s not obvious!).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/russell-soundclips.html (“Political Theory” clip).
What relative value do people put on their fundamental rights? That question seems as relevant and unanswered now as it was in 1950.
flypig,
I guess so, but I think presenting those two specific things as mutually exclusively feels somewhat contrived/artificial. A more direct scenario that people experience today might be the ability to get out of work to go vote. Being that election day is not a holiday, employers aren’t required to let employees take time to go vote and so the dilemma can be between voting or keeping ones job. Or another pertinent one today: voting versus social distancing to avoid covid exposure.
You know what might be interesting: not allowing rich people to vote. If they want to vote they can give up their wealth. If they want to keep their wealth, they have to give up their vote. Obviously it’s not realistic and contrived, but I’m curious what people would choose if these were the circumstances.
Sounds like your friend probably ought to have his medical license revoked if he is that unstable.
Right to free speech or right to vote… how about I vote against people that would evener ideate that sort of nonsense.
Sounds like his “friend” is of the “imaginary” kind.
There are totalitarian regimes with more freedom of speech reddit and Twitter.
The reality is, programatically checking someone’s facebook/twitter/reddit is massivly quicker to complete a basic check on someone manually and also reduced the possibility of one john smith being confused with another.
All of this information is posted publically by the user. Yes, it removes anonymity, but many social media platforms require “real names” anyway, so it’s not revealing anything the user hasnt already chosen to make publically available. As this information is already public, I dont have a problem with a state seeing it (as they already can).
Where I Do see an issue is on what criteria a user if flagged. If I am part of known terrorist facebook groups, makes sense to flag. But what about if I like one to many Sanders posts… am I then classified as a communist? (Still restricted travel in the US if you’ve ever been one)
Adurbe,
That’s the thing though, using political affiliation to vet VISA applicants is going to become a high risk possibility given the corruption. Should we just accept that? This feels too invasive.
There’s another problem too, people who don’t provide social media accounts may be denied as well even if they were avoiding social media. And what are the chances they’ll get feedback as to why they were denied? The current administration has no scruples breaking up families in the most inhuman ways: “Sorry, you can try again in five years, good luck”, minus the “sorry” and “good luck”.
America. Defining the term “Capitalist Dystopia” since 1776.
There isn’t much to take seriously on this site anymore. Just two stories down there is an article about the police just spontaneously loosing there minds and erupting in violence (lets just completely ignore the whole looting and rioting part)..
And then this..
Its not just that this site isnt “OS” news anymore, it isnt really even tech news at all anymore.. Or even “news” news for that matter..
This site used to be good.. Unfortunately it isnt worth my time anymore.. 10+ years. I think I’m done..
You are not alone, computrius. Bye “OS news”.
Totally agree. I came here because I’m looking for OS news, not for politics, tech-stories or even news were I can’t comment like the The Verge linked post…
So, painfully, bye bye OSAlert…
To me, it feels like Thom uses OS News as a personal blog at times. I also think Thom can be petty and shouldn’t engage in the comments. Mind you I also think he should quote sources and not make me go through the link to find out who it is. And if I am asking for the stars, maybe not just port a link to some random person’s blog to underscore some personal opinion of his.
But the rest of the staff clearly don’t seem to object and so I think there is no reason to expect anything to change. It’s been like this for years now.
jockm,
It’s been his personal blog for a long time… there is no “staff” in the normal sense, David usually steps in when Thom’s away. I don’t mind Thom’s views, but it would be nice to have more authors & content the way it used to be. Like it or not though journalism is dying. The economics strongly favor media consolidation. Google’s siphoned away most of the revenue in the industry and redistributed it to cheap amateur bloggers. Journalism has naturally gotten worse as a result, yet I don’t really know how to reverse course without the money that’s long gone
OSAlert’s David indicated how close osnews was to shutting down, I know he doesn’t want to do that, but I can imagine it’s hard to justify paying the bills, low as they might be. Many times I’ve offered up ideas to make osnews better, but I can’t help with money, which is what they need most to hire the people to write content.
We are the content now.
I don’t know if I would ever have called most of what OSAlert has done journalism. But if it is that close to the edge then I say let it die. Them can start his own site if he chooses. I haven’t gotten relevant news about operation systems here in a very long time (and I started lurking on the site pre 2000).
But I don’t know if funding would make much of a difference with Thom around. This is clearly the site he wants it to be
jockm,
If your not getting anything of value from the site, then why are you hanging around? You made the same arguments years ago….
http://www.osnews.com/story/29281/update-on-the-louis-rossmann-case/
Not for nothing but the entirety of your problem is trivially solved by not coming here, so why are you still coming here? I’m not telling you to go away mind you, “but no one is making you visit osnews” either.
You used to like osnews stories…
… and I understand where you’re coming from, linking to consolidated news stories is never going to be as good or fun as having original content & reporting. But the economic model for that fell through. Times are changing whether we like it or not.
Let’s be completely honest, if it weren’t for Thom, osnews would already be gone. He’s the one holding it together even if you don’t appreciate it.
@Alfman
I don’t need to go point by point through your reply. Everything can be answered buy either 1) Force of Habit or 2) I want the site to do better (as you do), or just move on
jackm,
Ok, but I don’t really see the point of you complaining to extent of saying osnews should just die…and then continuing to hang around be annoyed about it.
And I don’t see the point to your replies, and yet you seem compelled to do so. Maybe I suffer from the same urge and we can just not?
jockm,
Unlike you, I don’t wish for osnews to die. I try to do my part to have insightful discussions, which is why I’m here I don’t know why you’re here though if you hate it so much.
@Alfman It just seems very clear that you just want the last word and to be “right”, which is going to be difficult when we are talking about matters of opinion. I explained myself and asked if we could just stop this silly back and forth and you just blazed ahead when you had the chance to be the bigger man.
jockm,
Well, I’m not arguing over your opinion though. I just can’t understand why, given your opinion, you still stick around to criticize both osnews and Thom? You’ve known for years that this is not your cup of tea. I would hope that you could either make amends with Thom & osnews, or have the sense to find a better fitting community for you. Am I wrong? In any case I don’t always agree with Thom, but I will stand up for him, he deserves credit.
Sorry, I really didn’t realize you were done talking. Do you want to be the bigger man, or do you want to have the last word? Have your pick!
Cheers
:ppls like the Ringmaster has started something here. LOL