10 ms·

So the author wants to protect "the marketplace of ideas" from monopolies caused by a different market. However, they don't want the government to do it. They a

So the author wants to protect "the marketplace of ideas" from monopolies caused by a different market. However, they don't want the government to do it. They also don't seem to think it's possible for smaller companies to challenge these monopolies. What then is the author's solution? One is never given.

ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
Government should regulate Facebook, Google (Youtube), Twitter, etc. as utilities that they are. The current situation where the corporations aren't responsible for the content but can censor it is the best example of why they should be treated as utilities.
- whatisthiseven 7y ago
  But what would be the goal of governing them as utilities? This is always said as if it were obvious what would happen once FB gets utility status. Should FB resume its banning of sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, and ISIS videos when it is a "utility"? And how will the product of FB change as a utility? In what sense is FB a utility other than a very common place people like to go to, like concerts or a sports stadium or something? What is actually meant when we say "regulate technology companies built around communication as a utility"? How large before you become one? Is any app that has chat or public posting a utility now? What classifies? Is the only goal to make them dumb pipes? What other roles and responsibilities would the government hoist onto FB and require it do?
  - ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
    What will happen to New York Times when its running sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, etc? They will get sued. As soon as we can start suing them for the content they provide the sooner they will find resolution to it. The same way they will get sued if they censor content that might be deemed socially important.
    - danso 7y ago
      > What will happen to New York Times when its running sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, etc? They will get sued. The NYT isn't a public utility nor a public broadcaster. I'm curious what you think would happen to the New York Times if they were to get sued in your imaginary hypothetical?
      - goatinaboat 7y ago
        I'm curious what you think would happen to the New York Times if they were to get sued in your imaginary hypothetical? Editors can and have been jailed. They are ultimately personally responsible for what the paper published.
        danso 7y ago
        Which contemporary examples (i.e. within the last 50 years) are you referring to? Journalists have been threatened with imprisonment for protecting sources from government subpoena. But the sanction is for refusing a court order, not because of the publication content. https://archives.cjr.org/opening_shot/opening_shot_july_august_2014.php https://archives.cjr.org/opening_shot/opening_shot_july_augu... And in any case, a publisher is different than a utility or a platform. Social media users are already punished for publishing illegal content (libel, copyright violations, etc). How does making Facebook a "utility" change that?
        goatinaboat 7y ago
        If it is as your say why would you object to Mark Zuck being personally liable for all content posted on Facebook? If anyone slanders anyone else and his platform publishes and disseminates it, why should he not be considered responsible?
        danso 7y ago
        How would a law that holds Zuckerberg responsible in the fashion you describe not be applicable to every website operator and Internet service provider?
  - rayiner 7y ago
    It would allow the government to do what governments do with utilities (say electric utilities or oil pipelines). Prices could be regulated so facebooks profit margin goes from 30-40% to a “just and reasonable” 10%. Moderation of illegal content could stay, but there would be enforceable “non-discrimination” requirements so Republicans could sue Facebook for alleged discrimination. The government could impose GPDR type protections without legislation.
- Xelbair 7y ago
  Or absolutely ban censorship and content 'curation' that created walled gardens tailored to your superficial tastes. Only block content that is illegal, and do it on demand - so back to the days when the services like facebook were just a content aggregator, where filtering and curation was done by user, not for user.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    That would be the best solution. It wasn't even a problem before a political camp made it one. I hope the US finds a solution, because other countries are just not capable to do so.
- jinushaun 7y ago
  I don’t want to live in the dystopia where Facebook is utility. It is not remotely comparable to water, electricity or roads.
  - hackinthebochs 7y ago
    Communication platforms are absolutely as important as electricity and roads in today's world. And like it or not, Facebook has a near monopoly on certain classes of communications.
buboard 7y ago
The author did not claim to give a solution.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> One is never given Here’s an obvious one: break up Facebook. Easily splits into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
- sample2448 7y ago
  What are the guarantees it won't make it worse? Decisions like these are never "obvious" or easy
- intended 7y ago
  And that does what? This is a conversation where people are not acting in detail but on generality. What does moderation entail. What are the rules needed What rules for what type of conversations? What does moderation mean. What is an acceptable level of service ? What is “service” in a web forum? What’s actually wrong?
- kwshs 7y ago
  And that will solve what exactly
- F00bart 7y ago
  You‘d need to break it into much smaller pieces, but that is the obvious solutions the problem.
SilasX 7y ago
You can recognize something as being bad even before you have a solution.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- altcognito 7y ago
  A solution can be worse than the problem it allegedly solved.
  - dmix 7y ago
    Which is what the author recognizes: > Indeed, as conservatives often point out, the existence of a market imperfection doesn’t mean that government intervention is justified, if only because it may actually make the problem worse. But as many people don’t seem to understand, especially among libertarians, the fact that government intervention is not warranted doesn’t mean there is no problem.
gonational 7y ago
In my opinion, the solution is simple: If any “platform” censors beyond removing illegal or copyrighted content or spam, they should have their “platform” status revoked, and they should be considered a publisher. This prevents such companies from using “platform” status as a cost saving mechanism to help them become large monopolies. Companies like Facebook would not have been able to take over so much of the market if they had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on curating content to prevent lawsuits, etc. I also don’t think of this as some kind of punishment. It’s perfectly reasonable to want to set up some kind of publishing company that has user-generated content; it’s just not reasonable to expect such a company to grow to such a global scale as Twitter or Facebook. Edit: added “spam” to reasons
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pavel_lishin 7y ago
  > If any “platform” censors beyond removing illegal or copyrighted content, they should have their “platform” status revoked, and they should be considered a publisher. What about spam? And would this extend to marketplaces? If a company allows users to sell educational resources for kids, what would happen if they start removing items that clearly don't fit?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - buboard 7y ago
    They could have a checkbox "remove spam" that the moderators could turn on and off. There's not a lot of ambiguity about spam so it's not a real issue. I think the law should be "platforms should not tinker with their users' expressed preferences - you can't hide something that they 've chosen to subscribe to". > And would this extend to marketplaces? I believe these are already considered publishers ? In any case it's no different than how traditional bookstores work
whack 7y ago
Acknowledging that a problem even exists, is completely valid in and of itself. Especially when there is a sizable population that refuses to believe that something is even problematic in the first place. For instance, if a climate scientist provides concrete evidence and analysis showing that climate change is happening and is problematic, we wouldn't dismiss them for not simultaneously offering a solution to the problem.
raxxorrax 7y ago
Best case would be education to present the staunching advantages of freedom of speech.

ChaosDegenerate 7y ago

Government should regulate Facebook, Google (Youtube), Twitter, etc. as utilities that they are. The current situation where the corporations aren't responsible for the content but can censor it is the best example of why they should be treated as utilities.

whatisthiseven 7y ago
But what would be the goal of governing them as utilities? This is always said as if it were obvious what would happen once FB gets utility status. Should FB resume its banning of sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, and ISIS videos when it is a "utility"? And how will the product of FB change as a utility? In what sense is FB a utility other than a very common place people like to go to, like concerts or a sports stadium or something? What is actually meant when we say "regulate technology companies built around communication as a utility"? How large before you become one? Is any app that has chat or public posting a utility now? What classifies? Is the only goal to make them dumb pipes? What other roles and responsibilities would the government hoist onto FB and require it do?
- ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
  What will happen to New York Times when its running sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, etc? They will get sued. As soon as we can start suing them for the content they provide the sooner they will find resolution to it. The same way they will get sued if they censor content that might be deemed socially important.
  - danso 7y ago
    > What will happen to New York Times when its running sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, etc? They will get sued. The NYT isn't a public utility nor a public broadcaster. I'm curious what you think would happen to the New York Times if they were to get sued in your imaginary hypothetical?
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      I'm curious what you think would happen to the New York Times if they were to get sued in your imaginary hypothetical? Editors can and have been jailed. They are ultimately personally responsible for what the paper published.
      - danso 7y ago
        Which contemporary examples (i.e. within the last 50 years) are you referring to? Journalists have been threatened with imprisonment for protecting sources from government subpoena. But the sanction is for refusing a court order, not because of the publication content. https://archives.cjr.org/opening_shot/opening_shot_july_august_2014.php https://archives.cjr.org/opening_shot/opening_shot_july_augu... And in any case, a publisher is different than a utility or a platform. Social media users are already punished for publishing illegal content (libel, copyright violations, etc). How does making Facebook a "utility" change that?
        goatinaboat 7y ago
        If it is as your say why would you object to Mark Zuck being personally liable for all content posted on Facebook? If anyone slanders anyone else and his platform publishes and disseminates it, why should he not be considered responsible?
        danso 7y ago
        How would a law that holds Zuckerberg responsible in the fashion you describe not be applicable to every website operator and Internet service provider?
- rayiner 7y ago
  It would allow the government to do what governments do with utilities (say electric utilities or oil pipelines). Prices could be regulated so facebooks profit margin goes from 30-40% to a “just and reasonable” 10%. Moderation of illegal content could stay, but there would be enforceable “non-discrimination” requirements so Republicans could sue Facebook for alleged discrimination. The government could impose GPDR type protections without legislation.
Xelbair 7y ago
Or absolutely ban censorship and content 'curation' that created walled gardens tailored to your superficial tastes. Only block content that is illegal, and do it on demand - so back to the days when the services like facebook were just a content aggregator, where filtering and curation was done by user, not for user.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  That would be the best solution. It wasn't even a problem before a political camp made it one. I hope the US finds a solution, because other countries are just not capable to do so.
jinushaun 7y ago
I don’t want to live in the dystopia where Facebook is utility. It is not remotely comparable to water, electricity or roads.
- hackinthebochs 7y ago
  Communication platforms are absolutely as important as electricity and roads in today's world. And like it or not, Facebook has a near monopoly on certain classes of communications.

buboard 7y ago

The author did not claim to give a solution.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> One is never given Here’s an obvious one: break up Facebook. Easily splits into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

sample2448 7y ago
What are the guarantees it won't make it worse? Decisions like these are never "obvious" or easy
intended 7y ago
And that does what? This is a conversation where people are not acting in detail but on generality. What does moderation entail. What are the rules needed What rules for what type of conversations? What does moderation mean. What is an acceptable level of service ? What is “service” in a web forum? What’s actually wrong?
kwshs 7y ago
And that will solve what exactly
F00bart 7y ago
You‘d need to break it into much smaller pieces, but that is the obvious solutions the problem.

SilasX 7y ago

You can recognize something as being bad even before you have a solution.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
altcognito 7y ago
A solution can be worse than the problem it allegedly solved.
- dmix 7y ago
  Which is what the author recognizes: > Indeed, as conservatives often point out, the existence of a market imperfection doesn’t mean that government intervention is justified, if only because it may actually make the problem worse. But as many people don’t seem to understand, especially among libertarians, the fact that government intervention is not warranted doesn’t mean there is no problem.

gonational 7y ago

In my opinion, the solution is simple: If any “platform” censors beyond removing illegal or copyrighted content or spam, they should have their “platform” status revoked, and they should be considered a publisher. This prevents such companies from using “platform” status as a cost saving mechanism to help them become large monopolies. Companies like Facebook would not have been able to take over so much of the market if they had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on curating content to prevent lawsuits, etc. I also don’t think of this as some kind of punishment. It’s perfectly reasonable to want to set up some kind of publishing company that has user-generated content; it’s just not reasonable to expect such a company to grow to such a global scale as Twitter or Facebook. Edit: added “spam” to reasons

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pavel_lishin 7y ago
> If any “platform” censors beyond removing illegal or copyrighted content, they should have their “platform” status revoked, and they should be considered a publisher. What about spam? And would this extend to marketplaces? If a company allows users to sell educational resources for kids, what would happen if they start removing items that clearly don't fit?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- buboard 7y ago
  They could have a checkbox "remove spam" that the moderators could turn on and off. There's not a lot of ambiguity about spam so it's not a real issue. I think the law should be "platforms should not tinker with their users' expressed preferences - you can't hide something that they 've chosen to subscribe to". > And would this extend to marketplaces? I believe these are already considered publishers ? In any case it's no different than how traditional bookstores work

whack 7y ago

Acknowledging that a problem even exists, is completely valid in and of itself. Especially when there is a sizable population that refuses to believe that something is even problematic in the first place. For instance, if a climate scientist provides concrete evidence and analysis showing that climate change is happening and is problematic, we wouldn't dismiss them for not simultaneously offering a solution to the problem.

raxxorrax 7y ago

Best case would be education to present the staunching advantages of freedom of speech.