4 ms·

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

by 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.
- root_axis 7y ago
  >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. This is commonly repeated but not true. In fact, the opposite is true. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Scroll down to section C. 1. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. 2. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— 2.a 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; or 2.b any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    I don't see how 2.a would stand in a courtroom. What is 'good faith' and 'otherwise objectionable' in this context? Is removing all content from a religious group afforded in this definition, as long as the provider considers it objectionable? 'whether or not such material is constitutionally protected' has almost no meaning because almost all speech is protected. Another interesting point is, while it's allowable by the law to restrict content you deem objectionable, is it allowable to promote content you prefer over other content? Or de-promote the content but not remove it? Is it acceptable to remove religious content with no explanation as to why? Is it acceptable to ban or demonetize a religious group without explanation?
    - root_axis 7y ago
      I don't think it makes sense for us to debate "what would stand in a courtroom" since this has been the law of the land for more than two decades and has been able to "stand" just fine so far. We could debate whether or not the law should be repealed or amended, but the consequences of the law as is are pretty clear: online platforms are not responsible for content posted by a 3rd party and are free to curate content on their platform at their own discretion. > is it allowable to promote content you prefer over other content? Or de-promote the content but not remove it? Legally it is allowable since the law makes no distinction between "promotion" and "curation".

by rpiguy 7y ago

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.

root_axis 7y ago
>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. This is commonly repeated but not true. In fact, the opposite is true. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Scroll down to section C. 1. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. 2. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— 2.a 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; or 2.b any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
- linuxftw 7y ago
  I don't see how 2.a would stand in a courtroom. What is 'good faith' and 'otherwise objectionable' in this context? Is removing all content from a religious group afforded in this definition, as long as the provider considers it objectionable? 'whether or not such material is constitutionally protected' has almost no meaning because almost all speech is protected. Another interesting point is, while it's allowable by the law to restrict content you deem objectionable, is it allowable to promote content you prefer over other content? Or de-promote the content but not remove it? Is it acceptable to remove religious content with no explanation as to why? Is it acceptable to ban or demonetize a religious group without explanation?
  - root_axis 7y ago
    I don't think it makes sense for us to debate "what would stand in a courtroom" since this has been the law of the land for more than two decades and has been able to "stand" just fine so far. We could debate whether or not the law should be repealed or amended, but the consequences of the law as is are pretty clear: online platforms are not responsible for content posted by a 3rd party and are free to curate content on their platform at their own discretion. > is it allowable to promote content you prefer over other content? Or de-promote the content but not remove it? Legally it is allowable since the law makes no distinction between "promotion" and "curation".