3 ms·

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 t

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 6y 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.

laumars 6y 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.