2 ms·

> There is no such thing as "just a place where people can post content" in the sense that you are going for. It's a bit contrived, but the internet itself is

> There is no such thing as "just a place where people can post content" in the sense that you are going for. It's a bit contrived, but the internet itself is such a place. I think it's widely accepted that the internet itself, and to some extent DNS, is a common carrier in the sense that it shouldn't be doing discrimination based on content, just on bandwidth. I mean, I don't want to start a whole net neutrality thing here, but a router or the operator of a router does not face any consequences for routing traffic, no matter how offensive or illegal that traffic is. Web sites that are principally public repositories, where people can upload their content, seem to be a borderline case of that -- if they want to offload the risk of hosting the content, then they can do so, but it seems to me that they have to provide a service to society in return, namely, some sort of neutrality about the content posted. I think it's equally reasonable to say that they should have no shielding at all -- society has no vested interest, necessarily, in allowing such a site to exist that has absolutely no say over what is posted on it. Allowing users to contribute to a site is fine so long as the site, in the end, bears the responsibilities for societal negatives associated with posting content (primarily libel and copyright, the two unambiguous restrictions on free speech).

wvenable 8y ago
> It's a bit contrived, but the internet itself is such a place. The Internet isn't a place and that's what makes it a carrier. Just like the telephone system, the Internet connects you to other services. Websites are not principally public repositories; they are privately owned services. If they allow you to post, that doesn't make it public in an ownership sense or carrier. > If they want to offload the risk of hosting the content. But they aren't. The law doesn't allow companies or individuals to get away with hosting copyright infringement. It simply makes it possible for companies that accept user uploaded content to function in any way as the alternative would make this impossible. That's all. Implying this requires a moral imperative to allow any content is a stretch at best.

wvenable 8y ago

> It's a bit contrived, but the internet itself is such a place. The Internet isn't a place and that's what makes it a carrier. Just like the telephone system, the Internet connects you to other services. Websites are not principally public repositories; they are privately owned services. If they allow you to post, that doesn't make it public in an ownership sense or carrier. > If they want to offload the risk of hosting the content. But they aren't. The law doesn't allow companies or individuals to get away with hosting copyright infringement. It simply makes it possible for companies that accept user uploaded content to function in any way as the alternative would make this impossible. That's all. Implying this requires a moral imperative to allow any content is a stretch at best.