4 ms·

So how do you feel about blog platforms or other service providers that allow posting user-supplied comments on their platform? Should companies and non-profits

So how do you feel about blog platforms or other service providers that allow posting user-supplied comments on their platform? Should companies and non-profits all be required be to expend resources to keep your hateful comments available to the world? How do we determine what's spam? What's advertising? What's XSS? You have a first amendment right to type any of these things into an input box. Does that mean the organization receiving your message legally has to post it, even if it fails to meet a basic requirement of not breaking their platform or insulting their user-base? Are terms-of-service a violation of someone's first amendment? In my case where I am the only employee of my small platform, do I not have a first amendment right to not host content I disagree with on my domain with my own servers?

romaaeterna 7y ago
The big, ostensibly neutral, communications monopolies need their censorship practices heavily regulated. People with private blogs needs to be absolutely free to control commenting however they would like. I believe that we can respect both of these positions easily, 99% of the time, with our court systems deciding on some of the grey in the middle.
- nradov 7y ago
  Twitter doesn't even remotely have a monopoly on political communications. What counts as a "private" blog? That seems like an arbitrary distinction.
  - 12thsie34 7y ago
    I dont think you know what a monopoly actually is.
    - nradov 7y ago
      Actually I am very familiar with what monopolies are. But if you disagree then please enlighten us rather than posting low-effort comments.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Seems like a very pertinent distinction to modern democracy / society. Unlike in the 1800 when everyone could just go the the town square or publish their own pamphlet and have almost equal reach, today most discussion happens in 2-3 outlets: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. Whether those started as private companies, whether those are not public goods, etc, should be irrelevant. They have de facto captured a big chunk of the conversation that shapes the public opinion. I'd argue the same was true for TV and newspapers in the 1900-2000 -- they had a disproportionate power of shaping public opinion, and a monopoly of control on it. That was bad -- and it was already said that "he who controls the mass media, controls democracy". Even if people still had the "first amendment right" to open their own newspaper (as if that's practical), or whatever. But at the time, at least, newspapers and tv stations had limited pages and run time, expensive production costs, and it was at least reasonable that they couldn't include everybody's voice. Today, services like Twitter, Facebook, etc, not only have small marginal costs for including another voice, but they encourage and actively want to add more (all) people in their platform. So there's no excuse (from that point) of censoring people.
    - nradov 7y ago
      There are a lot more than 2-3 outlets some of which have completely different and less restrictive acceptable use policies. For example I understand Reddit is huge, although I don't use it myself. And there's always email.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >There are a lot more than 2-3 outlets some of which have completely different and less restrictive acceptable use policies. For example I understand Reddit is huge, although I don't use it myself. That's mostly a reason why Reddit (and others) should also be included in the list. But even if we don't have all outlets, enforcing freedom of speech to say, the top-3 by users, is good enough for a start... >And there's always email. Yes, just like one is always free to think what they want inside their head, or tell it like it is, within their home. I'm not talking about that, nor care about that "freedom".
      - SmartJerry 7y ago
tomp 7y ago
It seems perfectly reasonable to set a (somewhat subjective) threshold and start treating companies that exceed it (in some way - e.g. number of users, % of coverage, revenue) as "public services" and controlling them more tightly. The precedent is well established (e.g. GDPR, breakup of Standard Oil, ...).
coldtea 7y ago
>So how do you feel about blog platforms or other service providers that allow posting user-supplied comments on their platform? Should companies and non-profits all be required be to expend resources to keep your hateful comments available to the world? Yes. And "hateful" is a weasel world, assuming in advanced what the comments that would get censored are. The comments could also be unpleasant but not hateful, unpopular but not hateful, not to the taste of some group (e.g. evangelicals or vegans) but not hateful, stuff societies want to ignore and hide (e.g. past crimes or system injustices) but not hateful, sexually explicit but not hateful, out of the mainstream but not hateful, and several other categories, including hateful, but rightly so (e.g. "let's bring down this fucking oppressive dictatorship and put these bastards in prison" written referring to a country under military control, or the same such against some company's like Monsanto bad practices, etc). >Are terms-of-service a violation of someone's first amendment? I could not care less. That's a provincial US issue. We should care what the world should be, not think in the confine's of century old laws. In the 21st century, some terms-of-service, especially of powerful players, should be considered a restriction on freedom of speech. Even if one still has the freedom to open their own platform, or take a box, step on it, and say what they like to the crowds in the middle of Central park...
- zelon88 7y ago
  And some if it is plain hateful. Distasteful, and inflammatory. [1] Not all words need to be respected. Sometimes people need help, and sometimes they ask for it in subliminal ways. And of course it's a provincial US issue. The entire internet as we know it cannot exist without provincial US law holding it together, and a provincial US economy to keep it online. We own the internet. We own Microsoft. We own Android. We own Google and Apple and Facebook and Twitter and everyone else who matters. There are competitors in these fields, but they're not concentrated enough in any other nation to make a difference. If America fell off Earth tomorrow the internet and all the technology that connects to it would be useless. Full stop. And that should be a good thing. Healthy for your point. You don't want the internet governed on the world stage, especially if you're American. Grab your soap box and try that "easing of restrictions on freedom of speech on a global scope" bullshit in China. Even Chinese citizens will laugh at you. They don't care about their freedoms nearly as much as you do. [1] https://cdn.hillreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/gab-neonazi-takedown.png https://cdn.hillreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/gab-...

romaaeterna 7y ago

The big, ostensibly neutral, communications monopolies need their censorship practices heavily regulated. People with private blogs needs to be absolutely free to control commenting however they would like. I believe that we can respect both of these positions easily, 99% of the time, with our court systems deciding on some of the grey in the middle.

nradov 7y ago
Twitter doesn't even remotely have a monopoly on political communications. What counts as a "private" blog? That seems like an arbitrary distinction.
- 12thsie34 7y ago
  I dont think you know what a monopoly actually is.
  - nradov 7y ago
    Actually I am very familiar with what monopolies are. But if you disagree then please enlighten us rather than posting low-effort comments.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Seems like a very pertinent distinction to modern democracy / society. Unlike in the 1800 when everyone could just go the the town square or publish their own pamphlet and have almost equal reach, today most discussion happens in 2-3 outlets: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. Whether those started as private companies, whether those are not public goods, etc, should be irrelevant. They have de facto captured a big chunk of the conversation that shapes the public opinion. I'd argue the same was true for TV and newspapers in the 1900-2000 -- they had a disproportionate power of shaping public opinion, and a monopoly of control on it. That was bad -- and it was already said that "he who controls the mass media, controls democracy". Even if people still had the "first amendment right" to open their own newspaper (as if that's practical), or whatever. But at the time, at least, newspapers and tv stations had limited pages and run time, expensive production costs, and it was at least reasonable that they couldn't include everybody's voice. Today, services like Twitter, Facebook, etc, not only have small marginal costs for including another voice, but they encourage and actively want to add more (all) people in their platform. So there's no excuse (from that point) of censoring people.
  - nradov 7y ago
    There are a lot more than 2-3 outlets some of which have completely different and less restrictive acceptable use policies. For example I understand Reddit is huge, although I don't use it myself. And there's always email.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >There are a lot more than 2-3 outlets some of which have completely different and less restrictive acceptable use policies. For example I understand Reddit is huge, although I don't use it myself. That's mostly a reason why Reddit (and others) should also be included in the list. But even if we don't have all outlets, enforcing freedom of speech to say, the top-3 by users, is good enough for a start... >And there's always email. Yes, just like one is always free to think what they want inside their head, or tell it like it is, within their home. I'm not talking about that, nor care about that "freedom".
    - SmartJerry 7y ago

tomp 7y ago

It seems perfectly reasonable to set a (somewhat subjective) threshold and start treating companies that exceed it (in some way - e.g. number of users, % of coverage, revenue) as "public services" and controlling them more tightly. The precedent is well established (e.g. GDPR, breakup of Standard Oil, ...).

coldtea 7y ago

>So how do you feel about blog platforms or other service providers that allow posting user-supplied comments on their platform? Should companies and non-profits all be required be to expend resources to keep your hateful comments available to the world? Yes. And "hateful" is a weasel world, assuming in advanced what the comments that would get censored are. The comments could also be unpleasant but not hateful, unpopular but not hateful, not to the taste of some group (e.g. evangelicals or vegans) but not hateful, stuff societies want to ignore and hide (e.g. past crimes or system injustices) but not hateful, sexually explicit but not hateful, out of the mainstream but not hateful, and several other categories, including hateful, but rightly so (e.g. "let's bring down this fucking oppressive dictatorship and put these bastards in prison" written referring to a country under military control, or the same such against some company's like Monsanto bad practices, etc). >Are terms-of-service a violation of someone's first amendment? I could not care less. That's a provincial US issue. We should care what the world should be, not think in the confine's of century old laws. In the 21st century, some terms-of-service, especially of powerful players, should be considered a restriction on freedom of speech. Even if one still has the freedom to open their own platform, or take a box, step on it, and say what they like to the crowds in the middle of Central park...

zelon88 7y ago
And some if it is plain hateful. Distasteful, and inflammatory. [1] Not all words need to be respected. Sometimes people need help, and sometimes they ask for it in subliminal ways. And of course it's a provincial US issue. The entire internet as we know it cannot exist without provincial US law holding it together, and a provincial US economy to keep it online. We own the internet. We own Microsoft. We own Android. We own Google and Apple and Facebook and Twitter and everyone else who matters. There are competitors in these fields, but they're not concentrated enough in any other nation to make a difference. If America fell off Earth tomorrow the internet and all the technology that connects to it would be useless. Full stop. And that should be a good thing. Healthy for your point. You don't want the internet governed on the world stage, especially if you're American. Grab your soap box and try that "easing of restrictions on freedom of speech on a global scope" bullshit in China. Even Chinese citizens will laugh at you. They don't care about their freedoms nearly as much as you do. [1] https://cdn.hillreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/gab-neonazi-takedown.png https://cdn.hillreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/gab-...