3 ms·

Private institutions should be bound by the first amendment once they've reached a critical mass. The reason I say this is that, if a small number of entities

Private institutions should be bound by the first amendment once they've reached a critical mass. The reason I say this is that, if a small number of entities control the flow of information, and they get away with picking and choosing who has the opportunity to be heard, then the first amendment is effectively made meaningless. I want to be able to choose what comments to allow on my block and, at the same time, I want to be able to express myself on a prominent platform in a way that may or may not offend the powers that be. Big friendly looking corporations like Google shouldn't be used as proxies for the government to bypass the rights of Americans(or anyone for that matter). For whatever reason, people see corporations as being different from governments. What is a government but a corporation that owns land? What is a corporation but a form of government? They're quick to should about the importance of dissent, telling the government what it cannot do to our rights, yet corporations get a free pass when they are on the right side and hand out free goodies. Beyond the likeness of corporations to governments, big corporate censorship should be opposed on the grounds of principle. America and other countries are founded on the principle of freedom of speech, among other things such as the concept that all "men" are created equal. We don't allow businesses to discriminate people by their race, color, sex, or religion because of that principle. Why then can we not apply the principle of freedom of speech to Silicon Valley and Big Media? It's pretty frightening that the same people who told me how brilliant Nineteen Eighty-Four is(I found it the least convincing of dystopian warnings I've read), easily fall into the trap of believing that we desperately need a centralized Ministry of Truth. In the last year I've been realizing that Nineteen Eighty-Four is more realistic than I had believed.

kiba 7y ago
The big problem with this argument is that youtube is the platform that "recommend" videos based on a hidden algorithm, leading to filter bubbles.
- ravenstine 7y ago
  I definitely agree. Yet when a platform like YouTube deletes accounts and publicly announces the censoring of information that doesn't conform with the Ministry of Information(aka the World Health Organization), there's no mystery that they're violating people's rights.
  - kiba 7y ago
    Not promoting the video in their algorithm would basically accomplish the same functional difference as censorship. Ditto for any platforms that can demote content from their ranking.
    - ravenstine 7y ago
      Like I said, I [mostly] agree. However, there's precedence that publishers be free to pick and choose the content that they publish. Even if it isn't fair, this is a concept that's already existed at various scales for hundreds of years. To single out YouTube for censorship-by-curation would be much more difficult than to guard against them for blatant abuses. I'll give you an analogy. In America, businesses can't pick and choose people on the basis of their skin color or their sex. Obviously, discrimination in hiring still exists to some degree, but because it's covert or the result of implicit biases, there's a limited number of things you can do to address that discrimination. On the other hand, if the PR for a fast food chain goes on TV and says that the company only hires white people, that's unambiguous and has no conflict with the rights of the corporation.
- dzhiurgis 7y ago
  Perhaps someone should analyse and pop such filter bubbles instead. We all know US gov is incapable going to bathroom by their own, so perhaps EU could step in and require platforms to publish such filter bubbles. I'm fairly sure most platforms actually curate the bubbles already. IMHO EU should work on disinformation harm reduction strategy. Similarly how some members deal with drug addicts - contact people infected with bullshit and try to set them straight. I guess that (public mental health) would sound too dystopian for HN crowd.
krapp 7y ago
>Private institutions should be bound by the first amendment once they've reached a critical mass. That would be impossible, since the First Amendment as written explicitly only applies to Congress, and it restricts Congress' ability to pass laws, which is something private institutions don't actually have the power to do anyway.
- ravenstine 7y ago
  Then something has to change, because this situation won't become more tenable going forward. Platforms like YouTube will only continue to grow and obtain power. We either need a bill of rights against these corporations or leverage to get them to comply.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
no_wizard 7y ago
How do you, though, actually decide in a reasonable and objective fashion who’s big enough to warrant being held to a different standard than others? How do you really quantify that in a way that is objective and obvious Look at the rise of tiktok. On one hand at least where I live they had almost no mindshare but in the past 2 months now they do, and they’re growing in user count. Should they meet the same threshold as YouTube now? Instagram? This feels intractable to me, I don’t have a good answer to this problem. Not to mention it could easily become a gating mechanism to competition Also, how do you determine what information is harmful? Some of it feels obvious, but some of it not so much
- ravenstine 7y ago
  I was hoping someone would ask that. I don't actually know. At some point, we need to figure out how to address that question. I think it can be addressed... I just don't have a good idea, and I don't know that anyone does. But we've been kicking that can down the road for ages.
- brandonmenc 7y ago
  > How do you really quantify that in a way that is objective and obvious We set a number. Done. These are corporations that only exist because we permit them to. Given enough political will, we can regulate them however we want.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    Corporations now spin off new companies so that they hover just below that arbitrary number that turns them into a public space. Instead of YouTube, we have YouTube, MeTube, ITube and UsTube. We're now back to square one, because those companies hover below said number and advertisers control what content is allowed on said sites. All of those individual companies ban 5G conspiracy theories because it's bad for business. Next step?
    - tick_tock_tick 7y ago
      Subdividing your corporation isn't a right just like mergers this can be disallowed. As with any fraud laws intentionally trying to avoid it can be made illegal.
mrfusion 7y ago
It’s kind of the same argument for your water company. There’s only one company in town, are they allowed to deny you water service without some sort of published process with oversight?
- ravenstine 7y ago
  If they did so unfairly, there'd be hell for them to pay. As you say, they are fundamentally the same argument, except for one thing. A water company that decided to cut off water to people that its CEO doesn't like would, in short order, have to face both political scrutiny and the proverbial torches and pitchforks, if you will; unlike speech, if the water goes away, people start dying or they are forced to leave. Speech is necessary, but it's cheap as dirt, and most people don't have a lot to say in the first place. If the speech started going away, even in ways that are fundamentally unfair or flaunt the ideals of the country, not enough people would make a fuss about it. You won't die without speech. It can be comfortable to live without speech, or freedom of speech, anyway. Otherwise, the argument is the same and, in either case, regulation and the pissed-offedness of the little guy could change the outcome. Such is less likely in the case of speech.
BubRoss 7y ago
The internet is already available. Anyone can rent a vps and host their videos.
marvin 7y ago
This thread is the first time I've heard someone makes this argument. It resonates with an idea that I've had for years, since the first time someone pointed out that an internet forum is not bound by the first amendment. Yes. But. There's something there that is problematic at scale. Thanks for taking the trouble of bringing this debate forward.

kiba 7y ago

The big problem with this argument is that youtube is the platform that "recommend" videos based on a hidden algorithm, leading to filter bubbles.

ravenstine 7y ago
I definitely agree. Yet when a platform like YouTube deletes accounts and publicly announces the censoring of information that doesn't conform with the Ministry of Information(aka the World Health Organization), there's no mystery that they're violating people's rights.
- kiba 7y ago
  Not promoting the video in their algorithm would basically accomplish the same functional difference as censorship. Ditto for any platforms that can demote content from their ranking.
  - ravenstine 7y ago
    Like I said, I [mostly] agree. However, there's precedence that publishers be free to pick and choose the content that they publish. Even if it isn't fair, this is a concept that's already existed at various scales for hundreds of years. To single out YouTube for censorship-by-curation would be much more difficult than to guard against them for blatant abuses. I'll give you an analogy. In America, businesses can't pick and choose people on the basis of their skin color or their sex. Obviously, discrimination in hiring still exists to some degree, but because it's covert or the result of implicit biases, there's a limited number of things you can do to address that discrimination. On the other hand, if the PR for a fast food chain goes on TV and says that the company only hires white people, that's unambiguous and has no conflict with the rights of the corporation.
dzhiurgis 7y ago
Perhaps someone should analyse and pop such filter bubbles instead. We all know US gov is incapable going to bathroom by their own, so perhaps EU could step in and require platforms to publish such filter bubbles. I'm fairly sure most platforms actually curate the bubbles already. IMHO EU should work on disinformation harm reduction strategy. Similarly how some members deal with drug addicts - contact people infected with bullshit and try to set them straight. I guess that (public mental health) would sound too dystopian for HN crowd.

krapp 7y ago

>Private institutions should be bound by the first amendment once they've reached a critical mass. That would be impossible, since the First Amendment as written explicitly only applies to Congress, and it restricts Congress' ability to pass laws, which is something private institutions don't actually have the power to do anyway.

ravenstine 7y ago
Then something has to change, because this situation won't become more tenable going forward. Platforms like YouTube will only continue to grow and obtain power. We either need a bill of rights against these corporations or leverage to get them to comply.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

no_wizard 7y ago

How do you, though, actually decide in a reasonable and objective fashion who’s big enough to warrant being held to a different standard than others? How do you really quantify that in a way that is objective and obvious Look at the rise of tiktok. On one hand at least where I live they had almost no mindshare but in the past 2 months now they do, and they’re growing in user count. Should they meet the same threshold as YouTube now? Instagram? This feels intractable to me, I don’t have a good answer to this problem. Not to mention it could easily become a gating mechanism to competition Also, how do you determine what information is harmful? Some of it feels obvious, but some of it not so much

ravenstine 7y ago
I was hoping someone would ask that. I don't actually know. At some point, we need to figure out how to address that question. I think it can be addressed... I just don't have a good idea, and I don't know that anyone does. But we've been kicking that can down the road for ages.
brandonmenc 7y ago
> How do you really quantify that in a way that is objective and obvious We set a number. Done. These are corporations that only exist because we permit them to. Given enough political will, we can regulate them however we want.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Corporations now spin off new companies so that they hover just below that arbitrary number that turns them into a public space. Instead of YouTube, we have YouTube, MeTube, ITube and UsTube. We're now back to square one, because those companies hover below said number and advertisers control what content is allowed on said sites. All of those individual companies ban 5G conspiracy theories because it's bad for business. Next step?
  - tick_tock_tick 7y ago
    Subdividing your corporation isn't a right just like mergers this can be disallowed. As with any fraud laws intentionally trying to avoid it can be made illegal.

mrfusion 7y ago

It’s kind of the same argument for your water company. There’s only one company in town, are they allowed to deny you water service without some sort of published process with oversight?

ravenstine 7y ago
If they did so unfairly, there'd be hell for them to pay. As you say, they are fundamentally the same argument, except for one thing. A water company that decided to cut off water to people that its CEO doesn't like would, in short order, have to face both political scrutiny and the proverbial torches and pitchforks, if you will; unlike speech, if the water goes away, people start dying or they are forced to leave. Speech is necessary, but it's cheap as dirt, and most people don't have a lot to say in the first place. If the speech started going away, even in ways that are fundamentally unfair or flaunt the ideals of the country, not enough people would make a fuss about it. You won't die without speech. It can be comfortable to live without speech, or freedom of speech, anyway. Otherwise, the argument is the same and, in either case, regulation and the pissed-offedness of the little guy could change the outcome. Such is less likely in the case of speech.

BubRoss 7y ago

The internet is already available. Anyone can rent a vps and host their videos.

marvin 7y ago

This thread is the first time I've heard someone makes this argument. It resonates with an idea that I've had for years, since the first time someone pointed out that an internet forum is not bound by the first amendment. Yes. But. There's something there that is problematic at scale. Thanks for taking the trouble of bringing this debate forward.