4 ms·

> Tim Pool is right, at this rate, sooner or later, the Feds will come knocking and will shut that party down. What party? The government is gonna come into a

> Tim Pool is right, at this rate, sooner or later, the Feds will come knocking and will shut that party down. What party? The government is gonna come into a private organization and tell them they are obligated to spend money to preserve, host, and broadcast hate speech that doesn't align with the company's values? Please tell me how this differs from telling small business owners they can't refuse service.

samaItman 8y ago
Greetings, We've determined that your username contains hate speech [https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88 https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88]. We'll be shutting down your account forthwith and contacting the local authorities. Have a nice day.
jdsully 8y ago
The US government forces companies to spend money on many things they don’t want to do. Regulatory authority is extremely broad.
jonfw 8y ago
The government tells power and phone companies that they can't cut off service to people discriminately. I'm pretty libertarian in respects to market regulation, but when it comes to mopolistic industries you need regulation.
NotAnEconomist 8y ago
The safe harbor protections from copyright violations for user uploads require neutrality in content hosting, because pre-approval implies you must also vet copyright. They're welcome to censor to editorialize, but they lose their protections from copyright suits for relaying copyright material uploaded by their users. For Facebook to be immune from copyright liability for my uploads, when they display them to others publicly for profit, they cannot express prior restraint over my upload. Such commercial copyright violations carry heft penalties, in the thousands of dollars per view: Facebook and Google can't operate in an environment where they're liable to such a degree for uploads. The government recognized this about internet services, and granted them immunity to copyright related suits in exchange for supporting the American value of free speech on their platforms. (This is a law.) They're free to not accept that deal, but they're liable for their commercial copyright infringement in that case.
- humblebee 8y ago
  > The safe harbor protections from copyright violations for user uploads require neutrality in content hosting, because pre-approval implies you must also vet copyright. Is this a 'A therefore B' thing due to the way the laws are written, or is this explicitly called out someplace? > The government recognized this about internet services, and granted them immunity to copyright related suits in exchange for supporting the American value of free speech on their platforms. (This is a law.) I did a bit of looking (though not a lot) to try and find some sources on this but I wasn't able to really uncover anything that supports this. Do you have any source available? I'm interested in reading into this idea further, I find it rather fascinating.
  - tannhauser23 8y ago
    Look up Communications Decency Act, Section 230. This is a good primer: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
    - laughinghan 8y ago
      I read the entirety of the page you linked to. Nowhere I found does it say that neutrality is required for the protection to apply, nor that pre-approval or vetting copyright would waive the protection, nor that the protection is in exchange for supporting free speech. Could you point that out to me? In fact, it links to another page which states: Wow, is there anything Section 230 can't do? Yes. It does not apply to [...] intellectual property law https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230 https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230 Which directly contradicts your implication that Section 230 is the law that grandparent was referring to when they stated: The government [...] granted [internet services] immunity to copyright related suits [...] (This is a law.) Furthermore, Section 230 explicitly states that its liability protection DOESN'T require neutrality, and extends to: any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected (same link)

samaItman 8y ago

Greetings, We've determined that your username contains hate speech [https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88 https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88]. We'll be shutting down your account forthwith and contacting the local authorities. Have a nice day.

jdsully 8y ago

The US government forces companies to spend money on many things they don’t want to do. Regulatory authority is extremely broad.

jonfw 8y ago

The government tells power and phone companies that they can't cut off service to people discriminately. I'm pretty libertarian in respects to market regulation, but when it comes to mopolistic industries you need regulation.

NotAnEconomist 8y ago

The safe harbor protections from copyright violations for user uploads require neutrality in content hosting, because pre-approval implies you must also vet copyright. They're welcome to censor to editorialize, but they lose their protections from copyright suits for relaying copyright material uploaded by their users. For Facebook to be immune from copyright liability for my uploads, when they display them to others publicly for profit, they cannot express prior restraint over my upload. Such commercial copyright violations carry heft penalties, in the thousands of dollars per view: Facebook and Google can't operate in an environment where they're liable to such a degree for uploads. The government recognized this about internet services, and granted them immunity to copyright related suits in exchange for supporting the American value of free speech on their platforms. (This is a law.) They're free to not accept that deal, but they're liable for their commercial copyright infringement in that case.

humblebee 8y ago
> The safe harbor protections from copyright violations for user uploads require neutrality in content hosting, because pre-approval implies you must also vet copyright. Is this a 'A therefore B' thing due to the way the laws are written, or is this explicitly called out someplace? > The government recognized this about internet services, and granted them immunity to copyright related suits in exchange for supporting the American value of free speech on their platforms. (This is a law.) I did a bit of looking (though not a lot) to try and find some sources on this but I wasn't able to really uncover anything that supports this. Do you have any source available? I'm interested in reading into this idea further, I find it rather fascinating.
- tannhauser23 8y ago
  Look up Communications Decency Act, Section 230. This is a good primer: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
  - laughinghan 8y ago
    I read the entirety of the page you linked to. Nowhere I found does it say that neutrality is required for the protection to apply, nor that pre-approval or vetting copyright would waive the protection, nor that the protection is in exchange for supporting free speech. Could you point that out to me? In fact, it links to another page which states: Wow, is there anything Section 230 can't do? Yes. It does not apply to [...] intellectual property law https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230 https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230 Which directly contradicts your implication that Section 230 is the law that grandparent was referring to when they stated: The government [...] granted [internet services] immunity to copyright related suits [...] (This is a law.) Furthermore, Section 230 explicitly states that its liability protection DOESN'T require neutrality, and extends to: any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected (same link)