4 ms·

> 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-Semi

> 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.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        Like I said, I think "carriers" are important for plumbing-type infrastructure services. This includes phone companies and ISPs. It strains credulity to say that Facebook or a webhost falls under that same umbrella. You're assuming that networks are looking for an excuse, but plenty of network operators don't want to serve certain types of content. Making that illegal just means network operators are the ones being censored, rather than their users — except the penalty for disobedience is no longer simply finding another network, but fines and jail time. That does not strike me as an improvement. This also still doesn't answer my original question: if I as a business owner/network operator don't want to serve certain types of content, why does it then follow that I should be liable for everything I do serve?
      - meowface 7y ago
        One important difference is that YouTube carries content to be consumed by the public, while phone companies are more like the postal service: they send things from point A to point B, blindly (except for snooping from intelligence agencies), between private parties. These companies have many common carrier aspects, but they also have many aspects of regular private enterprises. I agree that perhaps some degree of regulation could be warranted to adddess their unique sort-of-carrier status, but saying that they should be forbidden by the state from disallowing anything that's legal is a slippery slope in the same way biased censorship is. For example, they may not want any risk of people seeing extreme gore videos, since that could cause people to use their service less, even though such videos are typically not illegal to distribute or view. But with total free reign over a behemoth communication monopoly, politically biased content curation and removal is also a huge problem. I think there needs to be a middle ground approach.

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.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      Like I said, I think "carriers" are important for plumbing-type infrastructure services. This includes phone companies and ISPs. It strains credulity to say that Facebook or a webhost falls under that same umbrella. You're assuming that networks are looking for an excuse, but plenty of network operators don't want to serve certain types of content. Making that illegal just means network operators are the ones being censored, rather than their users — except the penalty for disobedience is no longer simply finding another network, but fines and jail time. That does not strike me as an improvement. This also still doesn't answer my original question: if I as a business owner/network operator don't want to serve certain types of content, why does it then follow that I should be liable for everything I do serve?
    - meowface 7y ago
      One important difference is that YouTube carries content to be consumed by the public, while phone companies are more like the postal service: they send things from point A to point B, blindly (except for snooping from intelligence agencies), between private parties. These companies have many common carrier aspects, but they also have many aspects of regular private enterprises. I agree that perhaps some degree of regulation could be warranted to adddess their unique sort-of-carrier status, but saying that they should be forbidden by the state from disallowing anything that's legal is a slippery slope in the same way biased censorship is. For example, they may not want any risk of people seeing extreme gore videos, since that could cause people to use their service less, even though such videos are typically not illegal to distribute or view. But with total free reign over a behemoth communication monopoly, politically biased content curation and removal is also a huge problem. I think there needs to be a middle ground approach.