3 ms·

The difference in this case is that the usual defenders of private property rights and libertarianism feel as though Google is suppressing them removing the usu

by rpiguy 7y ago

The difference in this case is that the usual defenders of private property rights and libertarianism feel as though Google is suppressing them removing the usual roadblock to this kind reform. This is a rare instance where anti-corporate leftists and dejected right wingers could actually do something substantive together. In most cases I would agree with you the defenders of private industry are pretty fierce in the US, but all that ideology sort of dissipates when you feel like you are being oppressed (whether or not, or to what degree it is true).

linuxftw 7y ago
Some people are arguing that catering search results or what content is allowed on a platform to a specific set of political views makes those platforms publishers rather than mere platforms. Apparently this also has some implications in some political campaign laws I don't really understand. I think we're heading towards political ideologies having the same protection as religious institutions (which IMO, are exactly the same in all practical matters).
- rpiguy 7y ago
  I agree that political ideologies are similar to religions and that protections may be extended to them (although they should already be covered by what is in the constitution). What I don't follow is why it matters that platforms are becoming publishers. The government has never had the right to meddle in what publishers decide to publish (with exceptions for regulations on pornography and classified information). I can't imagine the government forcing Mother Jones or The Nation to print conservative viewpoints. If the platforms become "publishers" their power to select what information is available increases. They become liable for more of the content on their sites, but they also gain full control over content. The only way I see to protect freedom of access to information would be to declare certain spaces (Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, etc.) as "privately-owned public forums" where suppression based on ideology would be heavily restricted.
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    I think it matters in the context of liability. For instance, if you're a newspaper, and you publish "Politician X is a rapist" and you don't have a way to back up that allegation in court you're liable. As a platform, you're not liable for the content your users post. If you are allowing people to say "Politician X is a rapist" but not allowing people to say "Politician Y is a rapist", you've crossed into the land of publisher in some people's minds. Simply being a platform on the web is 'doing business' if you're getting revenue from that operation. Can a platform specifically reject a religious group from their site? Can a platform demonetize a religious group? I personally don't believe in protected groups, but if we're going to have protected groups, we should apply the same protection to all groups, equally, even if the group size is 1.
    - rpiguy 7y ago
      I am personally all for freedom of information and also would like the concept of protected groups to go away, however... Liable is incredibly hard to prove in court, and usually cases are taken in civil court not criminal court. Can a platform ban specific groups? I see where your argument is coming from. Commerce is allowed by the Constitution for the common good (to serve everyone). Could Walmart, for example, say that conservatives are not allowed to shop there? Definitely not. However, it has recently been established, through a series of court cases culminating in the Gay Wedding Cake case, that you cannot compel speech from an individual that they don't believe in. Corporations in the US are often given rights similar to individuals. I can see this going to the Supreme Court under a similar argument with Google, etc. (you can't compel us to disseminate what we deem as immoral, anymore than you can make a Christian baker bake a gay wedding cake). Ironic because leftists were livid with that decision, but it may be the one that allows private companies to censor you on their networks.
      - linuxftw 7y ago
        I think specifically in the case of platform vs publisher, there is federal law that gives some sort of extra legal protection to platforms. In order to get these protections, they have to behave a certain way. I'm not sure about this, but it's an argument I've heard. > Liable is incredibly hard to prove in court, and usually cases are taken in civil court not criminal court. Going to court is expensive, even if you win. Thus, the protections for platforms allow an avenue of easy dismissal of cases, preventing from go very far in the court system in the first place. > Google, etc. (you can't compel us to disseminate what we deem as immoral, anymore than you can make a Christian baker bake a gay wedding cake). Sure, but I think then they would qualify as a publisher and not a platform according to some. Compare the results from Google to Bing for the query 'Trump is a'. Did Google hand-tune their algorithm for their results? Did they tune their algorithm to weight more heavily organizations that share their political bias? EG, Prefer CNN over Fox News (or vice versa). Do some sites have insider knowledge to better game the system? I can remember a time when there were no news results in a google search. It was a better internet.

by rpiguy 7y ago

linuxftw 7y ago

Some people are arguing that catering search results or what content is allowed on a platform to a specific set of political views makes those platforms publishers rather than mere platforms. Apparently this also has some implications in some political campaign laws I don't really understand. I think we're heading towards political ideologies having the same protection as religious institutions (which IMO, are exactly the same in all practical matters).

rpiguy 7y ago
I agree that political ideologies are similar to religions and that protections may be extended to them (although they should already be covered by what is in the constitution). What I don't follow is why it matters that platforms are becoming publishers. The government has never had the right to meddle in what publishers decide to publish (with exceptions for regulations on pornography and classified information). I can't imagine the government forcing Mother Jones or The Nation to print conservative viewpoints. If the platforms become "publishers" their power to select what information is available increases. They become liable for more of the content on their sites, but they also gain full control over content. The only way I see to protect freedom of access to information would be to declare certain spaces (Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, etc.) as "privately-owned public forums" where suppression based on ideology would be heavily restricted.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  I think it matters in the context of liability. For instance, if you're a newspaper, and you publish "Politician X is a rapist" and you don't have a way to back up that allegation in court you're liable. As a platform, you're not liable for the content your users post. If you are allowing people to say "Politician X is a rapist" but not allowing people to say "Politician Y is a rapist", you've crossed into the land of publisher in some people's minds. Simply being a platform on the web is 'doing business' if you're getting revenue from that operation. Can a platform specifically reject a religious group from their site? Can a platform demonetize a religious group? I personally don't believe in protected groups, but if we're going to have protected groups, we should apply the same protection to all groups, equally, even if the group size is 1.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    I am personally all for freedom of information and also would like the concept of protected groups to go away, however... Liable is incredibly hard to prove in court, and usually cases are taken in civil court not criminal court. Can a platform ban specific groups? I see where your argument is coming from. Commerce is allowed by the Constitution for the common good (to serve everyone). Could Walmart, for example, say that conservatives are not allowed to shop there? Definitely not. However, it has recently been established, through a series of court cases culminating in the Gay Wedding Cake case, that you cannot compel speech from an individual that they don't believe in. Corporations in the US are often given rights similar to individuals. I can see this going to the Supreme Court under a similar argument with Google, etc. (you can't compel us to disseminate what we deem as immoral, anymore than you can make a Christian baker bake a gay wedding cake). Ironic because leftists were livid with that decision, but it may be the one that allows private companies to censor you on their networks.
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      I think specifically in the case of platform vs publisher, there is federal law that gives some sort of extra legal protection to platforms. In order to get these protections, they have to behave a certain way. I'm not sure about this, but it's an argument I've heard. > Liable is incredibly hard to prove in court, and usually cases are taken in civil court not criminal court. Going to court is expensive, even if you win. Thus, the protections for platforms allow an avenue of easy dismissal of cases, preventing from go very far in the court system in the first place. > Google, etc. (you can't compel us to disseminate what we deem as immoral, anymore than you can make a Christian baker bake a gay wedding cake). Sure, but I think then they would qualify as a publisher and not a platform according to some. Compare the results from Google to Bing for the query 'Trump is a'. Did Google hand-tune their algorithm for their results? Did they tune their algorithm to weight more heavily organizations that share their political bias? EG, Prefer CNN over Fox News (or vice versa). Do some sites have insider knowledge to better game the system? I can remember a time when there were no news results in a google search. It was a better internet.