4 ms·

In current law, the distinction is called common carrier status. Enforcement is lax and irregular, and it mostly isn't being properly applied to the tech giants

by burfog 6y ago

In current law, the distinction is called common carrier status. Enforcement is lax and irregular, and it mostly isn't being properly applied to the tech giants. We don't let the phone company disconnect phone calls in which people complain about the phone company, or about China, or about the governor. We don't let FedEx decide that you can't ship an unauthorized biography of the FedEx CEO. Common carrier status has never applied to news media. The closest we ever had was the fairness doctrine, which is gone and wasn't the same thing anyway. Fox News is clearly news media. Most of what we call "Google" is clearly not news media.

root_axis 6y ago
> Common carrier status has never applied to news media It never applied to websites either, so why do you want it to apply to websites but not "news media"? Do you believe that Fox News should be allowed to delete comments from foxnews.com?
- burfog 6y ago
  We invent a new technology by which to transfer things, and suddenly the existing law doesn't apply? New technology is inherently lawless? Being "with computers" makes it different? I don't think so. It's the same old stuff, merely with a technology upgrade. Be thankful, so the first amendment doesn't only protect quill pens and lead movable type. The comments on foxnews.com are at the borderline, so it wouldn't be bad to flip a coin. A reasonable approach would be that deletion is restricted to crude insults and off-topic rants. It doesn't really matter though, because the foxnews.com comments sit on the border between being a publication and being a generic public communications medium. There is no point splitting hairs.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    You're the one splitting hairs; a platform that is privately owned and financed by the owner belongs to the owner, if you believe the prerogatives of private ownership should be a function of popularity then there is no reason to carve out exceptions for media companies on different mediums. It is not a reasonable outcome that google would be prohibited from moderating their platform with respect to their values yet Fox News would be permitted to curate their platform with respect to their own. The litmus test seems effective.
    - burfog 6y ago
      Riiight... Verizon's phone network is a platform that is privately owned and financed by the owner. I think you're failing a litmus test here, unless you really believe that Verizon should have the right to drop phone calls that are politically offensive to Verizon executives. The same goes for FedEx's logistics/transportation network. It too is privately owned and financed by the owner. Imagine that it were run by an executive who decided that the terms of service would include disposal of democrat campaign materials. Send a box of Biden yard signs, and they go into a dumpster. The tracking number just disappears from the system. It's probably hard to see that Google is very much like Verizon when you happen to like Google's bias.

by burfog 6y ago

root_axis 6y ago

> Common carrier status has never applied to news media It never applied to websites either, so why do you want it to apply to websites but not "news media"? Do you believe that Fox News should be allowed to delete comments from foxnews.com?

burfog 6y ago
We invent a new technology by which to transfer things, and suddenly the existing law doesn't apply? New technology is inherently lawless? Being "with computers" makes it different? I don't think so. It's the same old stuff, merely with a technology upgrade. Be thankful, so the first amendment doesn't only protect quill pens and lead movable type. The comments on foxnews.com are at the borderline, so it wouldn't be bad to flip a coin. A reasonable approach would be that deletion is restricted to crude insults and off-topic rants. It doesn't really matter though, because the foxnews.com comments sit on the border between being a publication and being a generic public communications medium. There is no point splitting hairs.
- root_axis 6y ago
  You're the one splitting hairs; a platform that is privately owned and financed by the owner belongs to the owner, if you believe the prerogatives of private ownership should be a function of popularity then there is no reason to carve out exceptions for media companies on different mediums. It is not a reasonable outcome that google would be prohibited from moderating their platform with respect to their values yet Fox News would be permitted to curate their platform with respect to their own. The litmus test seems effective.
  - burfog 6y ago
    Riiight... Verizon's phone network is a platform that is privately owned and financed by the owner. I think you're failing a litmus test here, unless you really believe that Verizon should have the right to drop phone calls that are politically offensive to Verizon executives. The same goes for FedEx's logistics/transportation network. It too is privately owned and financed by the owner. Imagine that it were run by an executive who decided that the terms of service would include disposal of democrat campaign materials. Send a box of Biden yard signs, and they go into a dumpster. The tracking number just disappears from the system. It's probably hard to see that Google is very much like Verizon when you happen to like Google's bias.