Recognize deceptive corporate practices and avoid “community guidelines” designed to enforce editorial control & manipulate users.
Publisher or platform?
Corporations are using Community guidelines to sidestep Section 230 laws. Companies are updating their guidelines constantly, often in response to political situations & individual users.
Companies like social media sites create standards that are purposefully vague so their able to precisely choose when to apply them or let things slide.
Here we’ll cover how large corporations are seemingly hiding behind community guidelines to sidestep laws that distinguish between platforms or publishers, while maintaining complete editorial control.
Changes to our “code of conduct” policy
At this point every corporation has sent out the obligatory email informing employees and users of their new “code of conduct”. One that continues to be updated yet referred to as gospel.
This post will explore the idea of large corporations ostensibly using their community guidelines to bypass crucial laws that determine their level of responsibility for the content they host.
Most large companies, notably social media sites, alter their policies in reaction to individual users and political positioning on a regular, but predictable basis.
Many users try to comply with rule revisions by taking them at face-value, making adjustments, then publishing fresh content that adheres to the new criteria.
In response, the corporation takes punitive action against individuals they don’t agree with, using a morally-relative reinterpretation of their publicly stated rules. Even going so far as to justify some users egregious violations of the rules, where punishment isn’t warranted because they’re dogmatically aligned with the company.
Division, Exclusion & inequality
Next, these companies ban users who disobey their fluid regulations with increasing latitude. Then comes the retroactive enforcement of all new policies. Where previously sanctioned content is now deemed offensive.
Like two young boys playing with action-figures who disagree on their heroes' powers, we may soon reach a point where companies amend “guidelines” in real-time and enforce the contradictory updates on a mass scale. Enacting full control over what’s published by narrowing down the possible ideas allowed.
It would be reasonable to assume the goal of these companies taking these kind of actions & double speak is to dominate the minds of people by removing all traces of alternative ideologies.
Underhanded tactics like these do unfortunately work on unsuspecting populations, especially when given a never ending stream of jargon packed excuses that seem plausible to well-meaning, but technologically deficient users.
Their actions suggest that it’s all a game of pretend. Applying consistent deception on our laws and the American people through the sluggishness of the justice system and peoples understanding of new technologies.
If this deception isn’t identified in time, a new form of digital tyranny will be produced. One that isn’t contained online, but has grim effects on everyday life.
The reaction from Americans will be intense if they determine the intended purpose of these technologies was social control instead of costless communication.