3 ms·

I am also nearly a free speech absolutist, but I feel that platforms like YouTube and FB are nearly in-scope. I can't specifically say what the criteria is, bu

I am also nearly a free speech absolutist, but I feel that platforms like YouTube and FB are nearly in-scope. I can't specifically say what the criteria is, but there's some notion of how much responsibility they take for the content. Something like the notion of a DMCA shield; where a platform can expose third-party content without consequences so long as they response to take-down requests means that they do not get to do filtering. If they get to do filtering and curation, then they are also directly responsible for copyright violations or libelous use of their platform -- the shield shouldn't apply unless it cuts both ways. That is, by accepting some immunity from the consequences of free speech, they are then subject to free speech restrictions on their enforcement of their own opinions. A newspaper, for example, is not subject to the same restriction -- they are responsible for all content they publish, so can choose to publish or not publish whatever they want. This isn't a precise framing, but I'm trying to capture some of my general thoughts on why I find it unappealing that YouTube and Facebook can filter out content that they deem offensive. Facebook has a natural filtering mechanism through the ability for a user to restrict what they see. If you find content offensive, unfriend or block the person and you're done. Youtube can exercise some discretion in auto-play and recommendations, but they shouldn't be able to ban content unless they are required to do so by inheriting legal requirements.

inetknght 8y ago
DMCA is a United States law, isn't it? So what about mix-region content? What about content from a region in which the content is legal but it's not legal in the region from the person making the complaint?
- andrewla 8y ago
  I believe the DMCA's safe harbor provisions were adopted independently by most other jurisdictions, and there may even have been international treaties establishing some of the rules. Most sites are unlikely to contest take-down notices regardless of jurisdiction; that is incumbent on the party posting the content.
  - dbdjfjrjvebd 8y ago
    Article 13 is going to change this...
wvenable 8y ago
Should anyone be forced to pay for someone else's speech that you don't agree with? Because that is what you're asking these companies to do. I think the explosion of hate speech on the Internet is entirely because someone else is basically paying for people to post whatever they want. They don't need to create their own newspaper and get advertisers. They don't need to print signs. It's all free for them. You can consume as much services as you possibly can given your free time and those with more free time, therefore, get more free (as in beer) speech.
- andrewla 8y ago
  > Should anyone be forced to pay for someone else's speech that you don't agree with? Because that is what you're asking these companies to do. If they are going to get the benefit of _not paying_ for speech that they would ordinarily be penalized for (libel, copyright infringement) then that's the cost, yes. I think they should be able to impose arbitrary limits on the cost of serving content, either the size of the content or the bandwidth consumed by serving it, but by invoking any sort of copyright/libel safe harbor, they should lose their ability to curate based on content rather than metadata. Sort of like being able to opt in to being a common carrier -- it carries both benefits (immunity from most criminal and civil prosecution for content served) and obligations (complying with takedowns and not discriminating based on content).
  - wvenable 8y ago
    > If they are going to get the benefit of _not paying_ for speech that they would ordinarily be penalized for (libel, copyright infringement) then that's the cost, yes. Why? That's an interesting statement, but I don't see how one follows from the other. If you create a community online, should you not have some control over that community? Hacker News frequently censors and bans people in order to maintain a certain community. What if you created EverybodyBeNice.com that wants only "nice" posts? Is it not that fair that these companies can enforce their own standards while also getting protection from libel and copyright infringement made by their users? I don't think there is a good argument why one should be tied to the other. I think arguing that every single website should be a common carrier takes that concept way too far.
int_19h 8y ago
I think that unless they are in a market-dominant position, or there's collusion between several players to effectively create a cartel that has that position, then there's more leeway. But the ones that are - where their private rules have an extremely broad stifling effect that in practice makes it comparable to government censorship - should have very little leeway. I'd rather not allow such dominant positions in the first place (i.e. cap the size directly), but if we are doing that, it should come with strings attached - e.g. smaller companies get a choice between common carrier and curated platform with responsibility for everything, but something as big as Facebook is forced to be a common carrier.

inetknght 8y ago

DMCA is a United States law, isn't it? So what about mix-region content? What about content from a region in which the content is legal but it's not legal in the region from the person making the complaint?

andrewla 8y ago
I believe the DMCA's safe harbor provisions were adopted independently by most other jurisdictions, and there may even have been international treaties establishing some of the rules. Most sites are unlikely to contest take-down notices regardless of jurisdiction; that is incumbent on the party posting the content.
- dbdjfjrjvebd 8y ago
  Article 13 is going to change this...

wvenable 8y ago

Should anyone be forced to pay for someone else's speech that you don't agree with? Because that is what you're asking these companies to do. I think the explosion of hate speech on the Internet is entirely because someone else is basically paying for people to post whatever they want. They don't need to create their own newspaper and get advertisers. They don't need to print signs. It's all free for them. You can consume as much services as you possibly can given your free time and those with more free time, therefore, get more free (as in beer) speech.

andrewla 8y ago
> Should anyone be forced to pay for someone else's speech that you don't agree with? Because that is what you're asking these companies to do. If they are going to get the benefit of _not paying_ for speech that they would ordinarily be penalized for (libel, copyright infringement) then that's the cost, yes. I think they should be able to impose arbitrary limits on the cost of serving content, either the size of the content or the bandwidth consumed by serving it, but by invoking any sort of copyright/libel safe harbor, they should lose their ability to curate based on content rather than metadata. Sort of like being able to opt in to being a common carrier -- it carries both benefits (immunity from most criminal and civil prosecution for content served) and obligations (complying with takedowns and not discriminating based on content).
- wvenable 8y ago
  > If they are going to get the benefit of _not paying_ for speech that they would ordinarily be penalized for (libel, copyright infringement) then that's the cost, yes. Why? That's an interesting statement, but I don't see how one follows from the other. If you create a community online, should you not have some control over that community? Hacker News frequently censors and bans people in order to maintain a certain community. What if you created EverybodyBeNice.com that wants only "nice" posts? Is it not that fair that these companies can enforce their own standards while also getting protection from libel and copyright infringement made by their users? I don't think there is a good argument why one should be tied to the other. I think arguing that every single website should be a common carrier takes that concept way too far.

int_19h 8y ago

I think that unless they are in a market-dominant position, or there's collusion between several players to effectively create a cartel that has that position, then there's more leeway. But the ones that are - where their private rules have an extremely broad stifling effect that in practice makes it comparable to government censorship - should have very little leeway. I'd rather not allow such dominant positions in the first place (i.e. cap the size directly), but if we are doing that, it should come with strings attached - e.g. smaller companies get a choice between common carrier and curated platform with responsibility for everything, but something as big as Facebook is forced to be a common carrier.