3 ms·

EFF's word is not god. I like them, but you make it sound like it's a settled debate. I'm here to say there's another side and present that viewpoint. As you m

EFF's word is not god. I like them, but you make it sound like it's a settled debate. I'm here to say there's another side and present that viewpoint. As you many imagine, I agree with Sen. Cruz's line of question from the article you linked. And I don't think EFF's solution is viable. They suggest that Facebook should make their policies more transparent and give users more control over what they see. But this misses the entire point. Facebook/YouTube/etc are in a monopoly position. They've proven that they are nakedly partisan, and they have no intention of acting in good faith. Platforms should not be allowed to discriminate on any viewpoint or legal content. They can still provide tools for advertisers to choose what content their ads appear next to. And they can still provide tools for users to choose what they see. But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 7y ago
I'm not sure where you (or Sen. Cruz) are getting this interpretation from. Section 230 exists because Congress recognized that the then-only options of "common carrier" and "publisher" were too binary and didn't account for anything in between. It explicitly allows owners of content platforms that have moderation/curation in place to avoid liability for what their users publish. I'm not saying it's good that companies like Google and Facebook can shape public discourse by suppressing views with political viewpoints they don't like, and I do think that should be addressed, but Section 230 is what explicitly allows them to do that, not the opposite.
boomboomsubban 7y ago
>But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way. Section 230 explicitly states they can restrict access to constitutionally protected content. You can disagree that the law should allow that, but I can't understand how you can read the section that way.
manfredo 7y ago
What you're describing is illegal. Freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. The government cannot (at least outside of very specific circumstances - like an employer informing employees of workplace protections) make companies publish content. If congress tried to pass a law forcing YouTube to host PragerU's content, that would get immediately thrown out by the courts.
throwaway4220 7y ago
> They've proven that they are nakedly partisan Cite your claim here. If PragerU is dropped for being conservative, but FB helped a conservative president, how can you lump these two? > Facebook/YouTube/etc are in a monopoly position. Maybe go after this aspect if you believe they are suppressing other content providers.
toomanyrichies 7y ago
If you believe Facebook is a monopoly, then the solution is to break up its monopoly, not to compel it to behave a certain way in its capacity as a monopoly.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  In the past, other remedies have been found. For some time, there was a status called "common carrier". Firms that were considered common carriers certainly were compelled to behave in certain ways. Now they've paid lobbyists and lawyers lots of money so that doesn't exist anymore. Still, it isn't inconceivable that legislators who really valued the public good could create a "common online service" status to cover this and similar situations.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    This doesn't make any sense. The common carrier status still exists. It doesn't make sense to apply it to particular websites unless Congress acts to create a new law.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kelnos 7y ago

I'm not sure where you (or Sen. Cruz) are getting this interpretation from. Section 230 exists because Congress recognized that the then-only options of "common carrier" and "publisher" were too binary and didn't account for anything in between. It explicitly allows owners of content platforms that have moderation/curation in place to avoid liability for what their users publish. I'm not saying it's good that companies like Google and Facebook can shape public discourse by suppressing views with political viewpoints they don't like, and I do think that should be addressed, but Section 230 is what explicitly allows them to do that, not the opposite.

boomboomsubban 7y ago

>But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way. Section 230 explicitly states they can restrict access to constitutionally protected content. You can disagree that the law should allow that, but I can't understand how you can read the section that way.

manfredo 7y ago

What you're describing is illegal. Freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. The government cannot (at least outside of very specific circumstances - like an employer informing employees of workplace protections) make companies publish content. If congress tried to pass a law forcing YouTube to host PragerU's content, that would get immediately thrown out by the courts.

throwaway4220 7y ago

> They've proven that they are nakedly partisan Cite your claim here. If PragerU is dropped for being conservative, but FB helped a conservative president, how can you lump these two? > Facebook/YouTube/etc are in a monopoly position. Maybe go after this aspect if you believe they are suppressing other content providers.

toomanyrichies 7y ago

If you believe Facebook is a monopoly, then the solution is to break up its monopoly, not to compel it to behave a certain way in its capacity as a monopoly.

jessaustin 7y ago
In the past, other remedies have been found. For some time, there was a status called "common carrier". Firms that were considered common carriers certainly were compelled to behave in certain ways. Now they've paid lobbyists and lawyers lots of money so that doesn't exist anymore. Still, it isn't inconceivable that legislators who really valued the public good could create a "common online service" status to cover this and similar situations.
- belltaco 7y ago
  This doesn't make any sense. The common carrier status still exists. It doesn't make sense to apply it to particular websites unless Congress acts to create a new law.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]