3 ms·

A lot of people cry "freedom of speech" when it comes to private platforms (which actually US law doesn't apply in that case but lets shelve that point for now)

A lot of people cry "freedom of speech" when it comes to private platforms (which actually US law doesn't apply in that case but lets shelve that point for now) but the argument could also be tipped on its head: If the press have the editorial freedom to chose which of their reporters articles they publish -- be it factual, opinion, or even outright biased -- then why shouldn't other private platforms have the same editorial freedom? The "who" in your "who gets to judge?" then becomes a simple answer: the platform owners. The uncomfortable part is that some platforms have a larger impression on people than others. But short of government intervention -- which is a hugely unpopular option in America -- that's just the markets working the way you guys want your markets to work (ie given the psychology of confirmation bias, if platforms were to focus on unpopular view points their viewership would diminish). That's the paradoxical part of all this. The same freedoms are being used in both cases but in one instance it enforces principles you believe in and in the other instance it erodes those principles. But you cannot have one instance without having both.

julybuffalo 7y ago
The press you mention is legally accountable for its content. Platforms have protections. Telephone companies, for example, aren't responsible if you slander someone over the phone and they send the audio to the recipient. Why shouldn't platforms be stripped of their legal protections (and some effectively destroyed) if they are exercising editorial discretion? Why shouldn't YouTube be responsible for the videos that they do allow/have approved? If someone doesn't think that YouTube should be accountable for content, then should a newspaper be accountable? Should a person be accountable for his content?
- laumars 7y ago
  The ironic thing about your post is you eventually come to make the same point I was making. It’s just you’re getting hung up on the letter of the law and really that’s become quite an arbitrary distinction these days and one I expect will evaporate entirely within the next few years. For example we’ve already seen plenty vocal about how the likes of YouTube should be legally accountable. It might be an unpopular opinion for techies, particularly those who like to move fast and disrupt, but eventually things will change. In fact the only defence platforms like YouTube had was the telephone company defence you’re making (as it happens telephone companies haven’t been immune from the demands of censorship either) but the moment platforms do start self-censoring they lose that ISP/telephone defence because they’ve proven they can moderate contributions (even if that moderation is effectively worthless in a great many cases)
bcheung 7y ago
A key difference is that the press creates its own content. With platforms like YouTube, it is user generated. There is an expectation that it is a platform that allows people to publish whatever they want. In many regards I think "common carrier" status applies. Private companies like ISP's, telcos, and parcel delivery services are not allowed to discriminate based on the content nor the individual. This is similar in spirit to "net neutrality". The larger a platform becomes, and the more essential it is for communication and daily business, then the more important it is that it does not discriminate. The grey area is that platforms like YouTube both are public communication platforms, but they also curate content as well. Not sure the correct answer in that case.
- laumars 7y ago
  Indeed but my point was I can’t see the common carrier defence lasting much longer. The argument made some sense when communications on these things were a 1 to 1 relationship (you ring someone, they answer) but when communicating on these platforms have become a 1 to many (YouTube, Twitter, etc) they started to become a lot more like broadcasters than a raw telephone pipe. What’s more, telecoms companies haven’t been beyond government oversight and censorship demands either. What muddies the water even further is that some platforms even pay contributors, albeit for ad impressions rather than directly, but again it makes the distinction more subjective than it appears at first glance. Eventually there will come a point where the people outside the tech community will deem the responsibility of moderation greater than the the need for an open platform. I’m not sure which side of the fence I sit on but I do agree that the government mandating moderation has the dangerous side effect of raising the barrier for entry too high for any new players to challenge existing networks.

julybuffalo 7y ago

The press you mention is legally accountable for its content. Platforms have protections. Telephone companies, for example, aren't responsible if you slander someone over the phone and they send the audio to the recipient. Why shouldn't platforms be stripped of their legal protections (and some effectively destroyed) if they are exercising editorial discretion? Why shouldn't YouTube be responsible for the videos that they do allow/have approved? If someone doesn't think that YouTube should be accountable for content, then should a newspaper be accountable? Should a person be accountable for his content?

laumars 7y ago
The ironic thing about your post is you eventually come to make the same point I was making. It’s just you’re getting hung up on the letter of the law and really that’s become quite an arbitrary distinction these days and one I expect will evaporate entirely within the next few years. For example we’ve already seen plenty vocal about how the likes of YouTube should be legally accountable. It might be an unpopular opinion for techies, particularly those who like to move fast and disrupt, but eventually things will change. In fact the only defence platforms like YouTube had was the telephone company defence you’re making (as it happens telephone companies haven’t been immune from the demands of censorship either) but the moment platforms do start self-censoring they lose that ISP/telephone defence because they’ve proven they can moderate contributions (even if that moderation is effectively worthless in a great many cases)

bcheung 7y ago

A key difference is that the press creates its own content. With platforms like YouTube, it is user generated. There is an expectation that it is a platform that allows people to publish whatever they want. In many regards I think "common carrier" status applies. Private companies like ISP's, telcos, and parcel delivery services are not allowed to discriminate based on the content nor the individual. This is similar in spirit to "net neutrality". The larger a platform becomes, and the more essential it is for communication and daily business, then the more important it is that it does not discriminate. The grey area is that platforms like YouTube both are public communication platforms, but they also curate content as well. Not sure the correct answer in that case.

laumars 7y ago
Indeed but my point was I can’t see the common carrier defence lasting much longer. The argument made some sense when communications on these things were a 1 to 1 relationship (you ring someone, they answer) but when communicating on these platforms have become a 1 to many (YouTube, Twitter, etc) they started to become a lot more like broadcasters than a raw telephone pipe. What’s more, telecoms companies haven’t been beyond government oversight and censorship demands either. What muddies the water even further is that some platforms even pay contributors, albeit for ad impressions rather than directly, but again it makes the distinction more subjective than it appears at first glance. Eventually there will come a point where the people outside the tech community will deem the responsibility of moderation greater than the the need for an open platform. I’m not sure which side of the fence I sit on but I do agree that the government mandating moderation has the dangerous side effect of raising the barrier for entry too high for any new players to challenge existing networks.