Jul 22, 2022·edited Jul 22, 2022Liked by The Framers
Overall this amendment provides an excellent approach to protecting personal, privacy, property data etc.
Section 1 feels like a good way of cutting down on the massive flood of advertising we get all the time, section 2 feels like a modern update to the fourth amendment that covers digital spaces and use of online platforms.
In Section 3, I think clauses 2 and 3 provide an excellent qualifications of section 230 of the communications decency act, particularly clause 3 requiring a mass decentralized peer review system. Wikipedia is the gold standard for online content moderation today.
I am, however, a little concerned about clause 1 of section 3. What are examples of the protections beyond the first amendment that could be provided? Who decides whether "they act in the public interest, guided by truthful intent and toward civic impact, and in which service to the people supersedes profit motives or other pecuniary interests."
In our divided political system both sides in the debate routinely and genuinely perceive the other side as being either bad faith actors who are only interested in stirring up controversy to increase their own money and power or as being unintelligent or uniformed. While there are always bad faith actors on each side, more often than not this is a failure to sufficiently understand the worldview or perspective from which the other side approaches the issue. In this environment it is very difficult to even agree on basic facts. There would be very sharp disagreement about whether a particular media outlet met the listed characteristics.
I feel that this has the potential to create two tiers of media and that the occupants of each tier would shift based on who is in power. Does the broader systemic structure of the Reconstitution alleviate this concern?
I understand the need to incentivize a truer media, but to the extent that one's perception of truth is rooted in a particular worldview, one will tend to view a media organization that inhabits a different worldview as a purveyor of "fake news" even if the basic facts that that media organization uses are strictly speaking true.
It's as if you were listening to our conversation on this topic when we crafted it years ago. All things we debated. Ultimately what I've said in other comments is how we feel about it: we are nudging courts in the right direction by declaring purposes and asking them to interpret (Amendment 10) based on the spirit of the clause/section/amendment. Most importantly, the document acts holistically, so this is assuming that other amendments are also adopted to create a healthier system in which these principles can emerge in the ways we would hope them to... to your point: "Does the broader systemic structure of the Reconstitution alleviate this concern?" Yes, exactly!
Overall this amendment provides an excellent approach to protecting personal, privacy, property data etc.
Section 1 feels like a good way of cutting down on the massive flood of advertising we get all the time, section 2 feels like a modern update to the fourth amendment that covers digital spaces and use of online platforms.
In Section 3, I think clauses 2 and 3 provide an excellent qualifications of section 230 of the communications decency act, particularly clause 3 requiring a mass decentralized peer review system. Wikipedia is the gold standard for online content moderation today.
I am, however, a little concerned about clause 1 of section 3. What are examples of the protections beyond the first amendment that could be provided? Who decides whether "they act in the public interest, guided by truthful intent and toward civic impact, and in which service to the people supersedes profit motives or other pecuniary interests."
In our divided political system both sides in the debate routinely and genuinely perceive the other side as being either bad faith actors who are only interested in stirring up controversy to increase their own money and power or as being unintelligent or uniformed. While there are always bad faith actors on each side, more often than not this is a failure to sufficiently understand the worldview or perspective from which the other side approaches the issue. In this environment it is very difficult to even agree on basic facts. There would be very sharp disagreement about whether a particular media outlet met the listed characteristics.
I feel that this has the potential to create two tiers of media and that the occupants of each tier would shift based on who is in power. Does the broader systemic structure of the Reconstitution alleviate this concern?
I understand the need to incentivize a truer media, but to the extent that one's perception of truth is rooted in a particular worldview, one will tend to view a media organization that inhabits a different worldview as a purveyor of "fake news" even if the basic facts that that media organization uses are strictly speaking true.
It's as if you were listening to our conversation on this topic when we crafted it years ago. All things we debated. Ultimately what I've said in other comments is how we feel about it: we are nudging courts in the right direction by declaring purposes and asking them to interpret (Amendment 10) based on the spirit of the clause/section/amendment. Most importantly, the document acts holistically, so this is assuming that other amendments are also adopted to create a healthier system in which these principles can emerge in the ways we would hope them to... to your point: "Does the broader systemic structure of the Reconstitution alleviate this concern?" Yes, exactly!