7 ms·

He doesn't say why it's a trap to think about facebook in terms of publisher versus carrier. Someone made an insightful comment here the other day saying that

by collyw 7y ago

He doesn't say why it's a trap to think about facebook in terms of publisher versus carrier. Someone made an insightful comment here the other day saying that they (the tech companies) chose to play publisher and opened themselves up to whole lot of legal battles and complaints, when they should have stayed with the carrier option.

dannyr 7y ago
Carrier option likely means Facebook cannot use algorithms to recommend and rank posts that would drive engagement. Algorithms are a great factor as to why a Facebook got users hooked into its service and drives up ad revenue.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
I’d like to know why so many people treat the publisher vs. carrier issue as some natural law of speech, when it’s actually a fairly recent concept. To me it seems like a false dichotomy. Arguing from first principles, why should there be a binary choice between those two options?
- dvtrn 7y ago
  I’d like to know why so many people treat the publisher vs. carrier issue as some natural law of speech How do you mean, exactly? I feel that I understand your point but am trying not to make any assumptions.
- sintaxi 7y ago
  > why should there be a binary choice between those two options? Because the distinction is binary. You either censor what information people consume beyond what the law requires you to or you don't. publisher vs. carrier is the legal distinction between the two.
  - akersten 7y ago
    Citation badly needed. Please indicate the law that says "as soon as you moderate, you become responsible for all the other content on your platform." Because I don't think there is one. And I think that's an extremely strained interpretation of Section 230.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      The argument is not legal, but semantic. Unless the post you are replying to is edited, you are asking for citation for a quote that was not made by the person you are replying to.
      - akersten 7y ago
        Their post specifically stated a legal argument: >> publisher vs. carrier is the legal distinction between the two So I'm curious about the law that provides that. My quotation marks are to summarize the position being made - I use >> for direct quotes.
        shkkmo 7y ago
        Your summary seems rather inaccurate. The person you are responding to is merely pointing out that there is a binary distinction between those that exert editorial control over their content and those that don't and that "publisher" and "common carrier" are the legal terms that cover those two binary categories (which may not be strictly accurate.) There is nothing about responsibility, so you are putting words in their mouth.
        shkkmo 7y ago
        The legal protections for "common carriers" were established via Case Law in Smith v. California and extended to online platforms in Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. this was then limited to not cover online "publishers" who exert editorial control in Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. Section 230 was intended to limit this last Case Law decision and extend the protections given to online "common carriers" to online "publishers".
- lr4444lr 7y ago
  Because of liability. A newspaper or TV station can be sued for false content, not the printing company or the station engineers.
  - vkou 7y ago
    I can sue a TV station for telling lies on the air? Really? How much am I likely to win from this, because if it's true, I'm ready to start a legal crusade today. Oh, right... I won't get a penny. Free speech also means the freedom to tell bald-faced lies, without consequence.
    - jay_kyburz 7y ago
      Actually that's not true in a lot of the world. If you or your society are harmed by the lies, you can seek damages.
- jerf 7y ago
  We need carriers, because we need people to be able to dedicate themselves to plumbing without having to worry about the terabytes crossing across them. If they did, the Internet would grind to a halt from all the necessary processing and blocking and examination. We want publishers to carry some responsibility, for various obvious reasons. It seems to me that once someone is being held a little bit responsible, they're going to be forced to act as being fully responsible and need the power to block a bit of content, which will then come with the full corresponding responsibility for blocking that piece of content. What do you see as a middle ground? (This is an honest question, not an argument.)
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    The middle ground to me is something like "people should be free to interact, but if they're going to say something I think is racist they need to do it elsewhere." (Substitute "racist" with whatever you wish in this scenario). At that point, the publisher vs. carrier crowd goes "well, that racist thing wasn't illegal, so now you have to be responsible for everything someone says." But I don't really care about what most of people say; I just don't want them to be racist. This isn't a standard we apply to most businesses. If I run a bar, I can generally remove a patron for saying something without the conduct I choose to allow coming under scrutiny. I agree re: carriers, for the reasons you stated. But to me that's a status mostly reserved for plumbing-type infrastructure, not a choice services have to make when they're deciding what type of content to host.
    - endtime 7y ago
      > But I don't really care about what most of people say; I just don't want them to be racist. I hope you're ready to be accused of being a sexist and anti-Semite by many people's definitions. Not to mention that I hope you know that watermelon, dancing, math, and balloons are racist (according to someone with 1000 Tumblr followers, probably), and so have no place on your platform. The point being that determining what is and isn't racist can be a pretty hard problem.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
- geggam 7y ago
  Not really new. Scribes, news reporters, telegrams and telephones all throughout history have enjoyed immunity from the content they didnt generate. Ever hear "Don't kill the messenger?"
- greggman2 7y ago
  Is it a recent concept? The "concept" seems as old as time. If you say it it's your responsibility. If I say it it's mine. Your editing of my speech is your speech therefore if you edit it becomes your responsibility. A simple example just for clarity. I say "I hate my sister when she doesn't clean up but I love my sister more than anything". If you edit that to "I hate my sister" you've changed the meaning. That edit is your speech and hence your responsibility.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    Social networks aren't "editing" anyone's speech, though. They're simply limiting its reach, or not hosting it in the first place.
    - greggman2 7y ago
      They are selecting which content to show. That's no different then editing. It's easy to post 2 posts where missing the context of one other the other changes the entire meaning. So by not displaying one or the other they've edited the meaning and are therefore arguably responsible for the new meaning
throwaway_bad 7y ago
The comment thread is worth linking to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275269 In particular the Naval Ravikant interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qHkcs3kG44&t=3661 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qHkcs3kG44&t=3661
mikedilger 7y ago
Author makes many dubious and unsubstantiated claims: * Claims to know what the heart of the matter is, and that it is power * Claims those recommending antitrust are "mostly stuck in the industrial age" * Claims publisher vs carrier dichotomy is a "trap" without explanation Nonetheless, when he started talking about an API I got pretty excited.
- jay_kyburz 7y ago
  I don't get the API thing? Who is going to say what functions and data are exposed? Why do these services have to pay to host these extra services? Just because we say so? What businesses does it apply to? Does my business have to have open databases?

by collyw 7y ago

dannyr 7y ago

Carrier option likely means Facebook cannot use algorithms to recommend and rank posts that would drive engagement. Algorithms are a great factor as to why a Facebook got users hooked into its service and drives up ad revenue.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

I’d like to know why so many people treat the publisher vs. carrier issue as some natural law of speech, when it’s actually a fairly recent concept. To me it seems like a false dichotomy. Arguing from first principles, why should there be a binary choice between those two options?

dvtrn 7y ago
I’d like to know why so many people treat the publisher vs. carrier issue as some natural law of speech How do you mean, exactly? I feel that I understand your point but am trying not to make any assumptions.
sintaxi 7y ago
> why should there be a binary choice between those two options? Because the distinction is binary. You either censor what information people consume beyond what the law requires you to or you don't. publisher vs. carrier is the legal distinction between the two.
- akersten 7y ago
  Citation badly needed. Please indicate the law that says "as soon as you moderate, you become responsible for all the other content on your platform." Because I don't think there is one. And I think that's an extremely strained interpretation of Section 230.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    The argument is not legal, but semantic. Unless the post you are replying to is edited, you are asking for citation for a quote that was not made by the person you are replying to.
    - akersten 7y ago
      Their post specifically stated a legal argument: >> publisher vs. carrier is the legal distinction between the two So I'm curious about the law that provides that. My quotation marks are to summarize the position being made - I use >> for direct quotes.
      - shkkmo 7y ago
        Your summary seems rather inaccurate. The person you are responding to is merely pointing out that there is a binary distinction between those that exert editorial control over their content and those that don't and that "publisher" and "common carrier" are the legal terms that cover those two binary categories (which may not be strictly accurate.) There is nothing about responsibility, so you are putting words in their mouth.
        shkkmo 7y ago
        The legal protections for "common carriers" were established via Case Law in Smith v. California and extended to online platforms in Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. this was then limited to not cover online "publishers" who exert editorial control in Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. Section 230 was intended to limit this last Case Law decision and extend the protections given to online "common carriers" to online "publishers".
lr4444lr 7y ago
Because of liability. A newspaper or TV station can be sued for false content, not the printing company or the station engineers.
- vkou 7y ago
  I can sue a TV station for telling lies on the air? Really? How much am I likely to win from this, because if it's true, I'm ready to start a legal crusade today. Oh, right... I won't get a penny. Free speech also means the freedom to tell bald-faced lies, without consequence.
  - jay_kyburz 7y ago
    Actually that's not true in a lot of the world. If you or your society are harmed by the lies, you can seek damages.
jerf 7y ago
We need carriers, because we need people to be able to dedicate themselves to plumbing without having to worry about the terabytes crossing across them. If they did, the Internet would grind to a halt from all the necessary processing and blocking and examination. We want publishers to carry some responsibility, for various obvious reasons. It seems to me that once someone is being held a little bit responsible, they're going to be forced to act as being fully responsible and need the power to block a bit of content, which will then come with the full corresponding responsibility for blocking that piece of content. What do you see as a middle ground? (This is an honest question, not an argument.)
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  The middle ground to me is something like "people should be free to interact, but if they're going to say something I think is racist they need to do it elsewhere." (Substitute "racist" with whatever you wish in this scenario). At that point, the publisher vs. carrier crowd goes "well, that racist thing wasn't illegal, so now you have to be responsible for everything someone says." But I don't really care about what most of people say; I just don't want them to be racist. This isn't a standard we apply to most businesses. If I run a bar, I can generally remove a patron for saying something without the conduct I choose to allow coming under scrutiny. I agree re: carriers, for the reasons you stated. But to me that's a status mostly reserved for plumbing-type infrastructure, not a choice services have to make when they're deciding what type of content to host.
  - endtime 7y ago
    > But I don't really care about what most of people say; I just don't want them to be racist. I hope you're ready to be accused of being a sexist and anti-Semite by many people's definitions. Not to mention that I hope you know that watermelon, dancing, math, and balloons are racist (according to someone with 1000 Tumblr followers, probably), and so have no place on your platform. The point being that determining what is and isn't racist can be a pretty hard problem.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
geggam 7y ago
Not really new. Scribes, news reporters, telegrams and telephones all throughout history have enjoyed immunity from the content they didnt generate. Ever hear "Don't kill the messenger?"
greggman2 7y ago
Is it a recent concept? The "concept" seems as old as time. If you say it it's your responsibility. If I say it it's mine. Your editing of my speech is your speech therefore if you edit it becomes your responsibility. A simple example just for clarity. I say "I hate my sister when she doesn't clean up but I love my sister more than anything". If you edit that to "I hate my sister" you've changed the meaning. That edit is your speech and hence your responsibility.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Social networks aren't "editing" anyone's speech, though. They're simply limiting its reach, or not hosting it in the first place.
  - greggman2 7y ago
    They are selecting which content to show. That's no different then editing. It's easy to post 2 posts where missing the context of one other the other changes the entire meaning. So by not displaying one or the other they've edited the meaning and are therefore arguably responsible for the new meaning

throwaway_bad 7y ago

The comment thread is worth linking to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275269 In particular the Naval Ravikant interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qHkcs3kG44&t=3661 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qHkcs3kG44&t=3661

mikedilger 7y ago

Author makes many dubious and unsubstantiated claims: * Claims to know what the heart of the matter is, and that it is power * Claims those recommending antitrust are "mostly stuck in the industrial age" * Claims publisher vs carrier dichotomy is a "trap" without explanation Nonetheless, when he started talking about an API I got pretty excited.

jay_kyburz 7y ago
I don't get the API thing? Who is going to say what functions and data are exposed? Why do these services have to pay to host these extra services? Just because we say so? What businesses does it apply to? Does my business have to have open databases?