[ad_1]
Following the Supreme Court’s abolition of Rovi Vad, a number of technology companies have returned to state legislation to ban users and delete messages that could be used to obtain abortion services or information. at home.
Ro Vad It was the Supreme Court’s decision in 1973, and states had different laws regarding approved abortion services. In the age of the Internet, there is no need to explore such a wide range of government laws on abortion.
Some states have indicated that individuals who violate state laws to obtain abortion services may face criminal persecution, making online counseling illegal.
Most social media sites have a common law that prohibits them from buying, selling, or trading controlled pharmaceuticals, drugs, marijuana, and other controlled substances. Some users have complained that only discussing these options has improved their comments and accounts.
This has created a metaphor for technology companies that control social media platforms. At what point does medical advice violate the standards of the community or is it irresponsible to deal with it?
Meta’s representative recently explained that posts have been handled incorrectly in recent days, but that they will correct content that violates their existing policy.
“Content that attempts to buy, sell, trade, gift, solicit or donate drugs is not permitted,” said Andy Stone, Meta Communications Representative. He said.. “Content that discusses the affordability and accessibility of prescription drugs is allowed. We have found some misconceptions and are correcting these.”
While some posts have been removed incorrectly, it is true that other posts clearly violate social media standards. The number of users who offer to buy and send pills on behalf of other users is increasing and has been eliminated altogether. These posts violate the Terms of Service for companies like Meta, but users are not offended by it.
Technology companies need to do a balancing act. On the one hand, they must respect the right of their users to organize and participate legally with the forum. On the other hand, they must be held accountable.
As such, providing companies such as unsafe medical advice or providing services such as prescription drugs puts these companies at risk. However, some users argue that this is less about accountability, and that technology companies have the ability to control the national conversation.
Regardless of your position on abortion, this remarkable issue of modesty raises concerns about the bias and controversial issues of large technology companies.
To investigate the alleged bias, an Associated Press reporter attempted to buy and sell a number of controlled items. Posts about buying and exporting abortion pills were quickly removed, but posts about buying and exporting guns or weeds remained unaffected.
However, this may be due to the fact that social media moderators have become more active on the topic of abortion due to a recent court decision, rather than deliberately ignoring other articles that violate a site’s content policy.
what do you think? Are social media companies responsible for protecting their users from unprofessional medical advice? Or does it encourage big tech companies to discriminate in their national interests? Let us know in the comments!
This is Niche Gamer Tech. In this column we cover topics related to technology and the technology industry on a regular basis. Please leave a comment and let us know if there is a technique or story!
[ad_2]
Source link
