3 ms·

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 elsewhe

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
  Coming up with an objective and broadly agreeable rubric would indeed be difficult. But this is my hypothetical service, so the only definition of racism that really matters is my own. People are free to disagree and criticize, of course — but ultimately it’s my way or the highway, so to speak. I’ll also note that this doesn’t really answer my question. What is the reason for the platform vs. publisher dichotomy? If I choose not to host content I don’t want to, why does it follow that I should be liable for any content I host?
  - stale2002 7y ago
    > People are free to disagree and criticize, of course — but ultimately it’s my way or the highway No, it is not your way or the highway, though. Because you, as the platform, are also subject to the opinions of the public, now. And if you are subject to the opinions of the public, then you might start to decide to censor more and more things, not because you actually think that they are bad, but instead because some vocal minority is clammering for it to be banned. I don't want you to be subject to that public opinion. Instead, I want to give platforms an excuse to say "sorry! We can't ban anything at all, because we are required to act neutrally!". That way nobody can complain and try and pressure the network into expanding their definition of bad things more and more.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      Every company is subject to the opinions of the public. I avoid Google products because they don't respect my privacy; I know people who don't use Apple products because they're too controlling. That is called "doing business". And trying to be neutral doesn't even insulate you from those opinions! When I realized my previous webhost's position was to allow e.g. Nazi content as long as it was legal, I switched hosts. What do you think that webhost would do if enough people followed suit?
      - stale2002 7y ago
        > Every company is subject to the opinions of the public When was the last time that the phone company was protested because it refused to censor certain people? The answer is that this basically never happens. > What do you think that webhost would do if enough people followed suit? Well, if it was illegal for webhosts to refuse service to groups, then I don't think that these webhosts would be protested, or whatever, for not censoring certain groups. > trying to be neutral doesn't even insulate you from those opinions Which is why I want to give networks an excuse, where they can say "Sorry everyone! It is completely out of our hands! We can't censor them even if we wanted to." > I switched hosts And if every host is hosting controversial content, then you won't be able to find any that isn't being neutral. Have you changed your phone provider, because Nazis are using AT&T to make phone calls? I doubt it.
kofejnik 7y ago
what if you think it's racist but someone else thinks it's fine? Who gets to decide?
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  Whoever has the greatest number of followers gets to be the arbiter of truth.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    Currently that's FB/Twitter (aggregating populations using). When the arbiter of truth is a profit-oriented, authoritarian regime (ie, any corporation) that's not beholden to anyone - bad things happen. Just look at Apple's AppStore for an example (at least politics isn't influenced by Apps).
    - joubert 7y ago
      > at least politics isn't influenced by Apps Maybe. https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/18/20921300/rebulicans-democrats-blizzard-apple-china-hong-kong-app-censorship https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/18/20921300/rebulicans-demo...
meowface 7y ago
The issue is a bar isn't an embedded monopoly, but Facebook is. Want a social network? Facebook's the only real game in town. Videos? You have to use YouTube. Photos? Instagram (Facebook). Microblogging? Twitter. There's Diaspora, and Vimeo, and Mastodon, but these are basically non-factors statistically, and they serve different, less common niches. Not to say a company needs to permit all content, no matter how racist or bad, just because it's a monopoly and a sort-of-carrier. But things definitely get trickier. If you're banned from YouTube, you basically can't upload videos anymore, period, at least if you want anyone to look at them. These companies don't fit the classical mode of a carrier, like a telephone provider, because they carry content to be consumed openly by the public. I think Discord is probably the closest thing to a more traditional carrier, though it's still not totally comparable. There's no good solution here other than debating a reasonable middle ground. These companies probably do need to be more open with what they allow compared to a small business, but they should still also have leeway to make their own decisions. That's a pretty wishy-washy answer, but I think it's the only alternative to avoid the extremes of either full public utility regulation with government-enforced free speech, or super nitpicky and biased content curation. They can't be treated like either a standard business or a public service. They're in between.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Let me preface this by saying I am sympathetic to breaking up monopoly-esque companies that amass too much power. That said, I think this sentence is the crux of your comment: > If you're banned from YouTube, you basically can't upload videos anymore, period, at least if you want anyone to look at them. There's a pithy statement that applies here: "freedom of speech is not freedom of reach". Because there are plenty of other ways to upload videos — Vimeo and PeerTube and your own server — but none have YouTube's killer feature, which is distribution to a built-in audience. Let's back up a few decades and say you want to promote Nazism, which is legal. Your options are pretty limited! No major newspaper will publish your article, no major radio station will let you speak and no major TV channel will give you a show. You can distribute your own newsletter, get on public access TV, transmit on unused radio frequencies, or maybe even find a small company that will allow you. But for the most part, you can't distribute to large audiences, and no one has a problem with this. Enter the Internet. Now anyone can publish things consumable by anyone in the world… but all of a sudden that's not enough, and it's imperative that it's just as easy for Nazis to reach a huge audience as anyone else? What is so fundamentally different about YouTube vs. TV networks that we need to revisit this? Granted, Nazism is an extreme example; it's more likely that people are concerned about e.g. alleged censorship of conservative views. But it's difficult for me to really care about this, because these are still mainstream views! Even if you don't think you're welcome on Twitter, you can go to Gab or Voat. You can read about it on Breitbart and The Daily Caller. You can get it delivered in the Wall Street Journal. You can watch it on Fox News. For speech that is being "censored", it sure is easy to find. I'll finish by reiterating my support for breaking up giant companies that effectively control a large part of discourse. Concentrated power is never a good thing. But I think it's a gross violation of free speech to force networks to distribute content they don't want to — especially when there are always options for people to get their speech out.

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
Coming up with an objective and broadly agreeable rubric would indeed be difficult. But this is my hypothetical service, so the only definition of racism that really matters is my own. People are free to disagree and criticize, of course — but ultimately it’s my way or the highway, so to speak. I’ll also note that this doesn’t really answer my question. What is the reason for the platform vs. publisher dichotomy? If I choose not to host content I don’t want to, why does it follow that I should be liable for any content I host?
- stale2002 7y ago
  > People are free to disagree and criticize, of course — but ultimately it’s my way or the highway No, it is not your way or the highway, though. Because you, as the platform, are also subject to the opinions of the public, now. And if you are subject to the opinions of the public, then you might start to decide to censor more and more things, not because you actually think that they are bad, but instead because some vocal minority is clammering for it to be banned. I don't want you to be subject to that public opinion. Instead, I want to give platforms an excuse to say "sorry! We can't ban anything at all, because we are required to act neutrally!". That way nobody can complain and try and pressure the network into expanding their definition of bad things more and more.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    Every company is subject to the opinions of the public. I avoid Google products because they don't respect my privacy; I know people who don't use Apple products because they're too controlling. That is called "doing business". And trying to be neutral doesn't even insulate you from those opinions! When I realized my previous webhost's position was to allow e.g. Nazi content as long as it was legal, I switched hosts. What do you think that webhost would do if enough people followed suit?
    - stale2002 7y ago
      > Every company is subject to the opinions of the public When was the last time that the phone company was protested because it refused to censor certain people? The answer is that this basically never happens. > What do you think that webhost would do if enough people followed suit? Well, if it was illegal for webhosts to refuse service to groups, then I don't think that these webhosts would be protested, or whatever, for not censoring certain groups. > trying to be neutral doesn't even insulate you from those opinions Which is why I want to give networks an excuse, where they can say "Sorry everyone! It is completely out of our hands! We can't censor them even if we wanted to." > I switched hosts And if every host is hosting controversial content, then you won't be able to find any that isn't being neutral. Have you changed your phone provider, because Nazis are using AT&T to make phone calls? I doubt it.

kofejnik 7y ago

what if you think it's racist but someone else thinks it's fine? Who gets to decide?

CompanionCuuube 7y ago
Whoever has the greatest number of followers gets to be the arbiter of truth.
- r00fus 7y ago
  Currently that's FB/Twitter (aggregating populations using). When the arbiter of truth is a profit-oriented, authoritarian regime (ie, any corporation) that's not beholden to anyone - bad things happen. Just look at Apple's AppStore for an example (at least politics isn't influenced by Apps).
  - joubert 7y ago
    > at least politics isn't influenced by Apps Maybe. https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/18/20921300/rebulicans-democrats-blizzard-apple-china-hong-kong-app-censorship https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/18/20921300/rebulicans-demo...

meowface 7y ago

The issue is a bar isn't an embedded monopoly, but Facebook is. Want a social network? Facebook's the only real game in town. Videos? You have to use YouTube. Photos? Instagram (Facebook). Microblogging? Twitter. There's Diaspora, and Vimeo, and Mastodon, but these are basically non-factors statistically, and they serve different, less common niches. Not to say a company needs to permit all content, no matter how racist or bad, just because it's a monopoly and a sort-of-carrier. But things definitely get trickier. If you're banned from YouTube, you basically can't upload videos anymore, period, at least if you want anyone to look at them. These companies don't fit the classical mode of a carrier, like a telephone provider, because they carry content to be consumed openly by the public. I think Discord is probably the closest thing to a more traditional carrier, though it's still not totally comparable. There's no good solution here other than debating a reasonable middle ground. These companies probably do need to be more open with what they allow compared to a small business, but they should still also have leeway to make their own decisions. That's a pretty wishy-washy answer, but I think it's the only alternative to avoid the extremes of either full public utility regulation with government-enforced free speech, or super nitpicky and biased content curation. They can't be treated like either a standard business or a public service. They're in between.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
Let me preface this by saying I am sympathetic to breaking up monopoly-esque companies that amass too much power. That said, I think this sentence is the crux of your comment: > If you're banned from YouTube, you basically can't upload videos anymore, period, at least if you want anyone to look at them. There's a pithy statement that applies here: "freedom of speech is not freedom of reach". Because there are plenty of other ways to upload videos — Vimeo and PeerTube and your own server — but none have YouTube's killer feature, which is distribution to a built-in audience. Let's back up a few decades and say you want to promote Nazism, which is legal. Your options are pretty limited! No major newspaper will publish your article, no major radio station will let you speak and no major TV channel will give you a show. You can distribute your own newsletter, get on public access TV, transmit on unused radio frequencies, or maybe even find a small company that will allow you. But for the most part, you can't distribute to large audiences, and no one has a problem with this. Enter the Internet. Now anyone can publish things consumable by anyone in the world… but all of a sudden that's not enough, and it's imperative that it's just as easy for Nazis to reach a huge audience as anyone else? What is so fundamentally different about YouTube vs. TV networks that we need to revisit this? Granted, Nazism is an extreme example; it's more likely that people are concerned about e.g. alleged censorship of conservative views. But it's difficult for me to really care about this, because these are still mainstream views! Even if you don't think you're welcome on Twitter, you can go to Gab or Voat. You can read about it on Breitbart and The Daily Caller. You can get it delivered in the Wall Street Journal. You can watch it on Fox News. For speech that is being "censored", it sure is easy to find. I'll finish by reiterating my support for breaking up giant companies that effectively control a large part of discourse. Concentrated power is never a good thing. But I think it's a gross violation of free speech to force networks to distribute content they don't want to — especially when there are always options for people to get their speech out.