24 ms·

Bell Telephone was a peer-to-peer communications infrastructure, not a publishing platform. To the extent that it did provide a medium for publication (the pho

Bell Telephone was a peer-to-peer communications infrastructure, not a publishing platform. To the extent that it did provide a medium for publication (the phonebook), they absolutely had standards for what could be published. Were those standards arbitrary? Was the Jewish Defamation League allowed to have their business listed, or advertise?

iguy 8y ago
Part of this is that we haven't quite figured out what "publishing platform" means. It's not like a printing press (renting time on machine which applies ink) but also not like a magazine (with an editor pushing a view, his name on page 2). Facebook certainly carries a lot of peer-to-peer communications, but wades deep into deciding what's acceptable. Yet unlike magazines, which were always numerous, they have something close to a monopoly.
- XorNot 8y ago
  Facebook wades in on the parts of the platform which are publication like, or undirected. They don't discriminate at all in private peer to peer messages.
smelendez 8y ago
There were also some restrictions on lines used for broadcasting purposes, where you could dial in to hear a recorded message. This was used by mostly right wing commentators from the '60s-'80s and sometimes derided as "dial-a-hate." The lines had to announce the subscriber's name and the recordings could be required to be taken down if found defamatory. When 900 numbers with paid recordings, like messages from celebrities or gambling advice, became available, they had to announce their fee structures upfront before people were connected to the paid programming.
- iguy 8y ago
  This is true, but these were side services. The core service of having a phone number was, I think, universal the way having a street address is. I mean not so much legally as in popular imagination. Like you can write fan letters to serial killers on death row, if you wish, and nobody is scandalised that the USPS will deliver your letter like any other.

iguy 8y ago

Part of this is that we haven't quite figured out what "publishing platform" means. It's not like a printing press (renting time on machine which applies ink) but also not like a magazine (with an editor pushing a view, his name on page 2). Facebook certainly carries a lot of peer-to-peer communications, but wades deep into deciding what's acceptable. Yet unlike magazines, which were always numerous, they have something close to a monopoly.

XorNot 8y ago
Facebook wades in on the parts of the platform which are publication like, or undirected. They don't discriminate at all in private peer to peer messages.

smelendez 8y ago

There were also some restrictions on lines used for broadcasting purposes, where you could dial in to hear a recorded message. This was used by mostly right wing commentators from the '60s-'80s and sometimes derided as "dial-a-hate." The lines had to announce the subscriber's name and the recordings could be required to be taken down if found defamatory. When 900 numbers with paid recordings, like messages from celebrities or gambling advice, became available, they had to announce their fee structures upfront before people were connected to the paid programming.

iguy 8y ago
This is true, but these were side services. The core service of having a phone number was, I think, universal the way having a street address is. I mean not so much legally as in popular imagination. Like you can write fan letters to serial killers on death row, if you wish, and nobody is scandalised that the USPS will deliver your letter like any other.