4 ms·

The legislation (Communications Decency Act of 1996) under discussion flows from EFFECTIVE lobbying by telecom monopolies seeking a liability shield [0]. Monop

The legislation (Communications Decency Act of 1996) under discussion flows from EFFECTIVE lobbying by telecom monopolies seeking a liability shield [0]. Monopoly power and market manipulation is a second order issue. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

slg 6y ago
I legitimately don't understand your point here. You seem to be implying that this specific legislation is a form of regulatory capture. Meanwhile nothing in the Wikipedia article you linked seems to support that. It even notes that groups like the ACLU are strongly in support of Sec 230. I don't think the ACLU normally does the bidding of big telecom. Either way, if the root cause is telecom monopolies, let's actually try to fix monopolies rather creating a new category of private company that becomes a public good through its monopoly.
- caminante 6y ago
  My point is that an anti-trust lens isn't adequate if legislation keeps getting passed that rolls back regulation [0] and promotes formation of trusts. The CDA and §230 was part of the broader Telecommunications Act of 1996. Look at the outcome, which sure seems like "regulatory capture" to me: > Before the 1996 Act was passed, the largest four [Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers] owned less than half of all the lines in the country while, five years later, the largest four local telephone companies owned about 85% of all the lines in the country. It's also possible that the ACLU's interests will conveniently align with a subset of interests for third parties when the third party's liability is reduced. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996#Claims_made_in_opposition_to_the_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996...
  - slg 6y ago
    But the current discussion is specifically about this one small aspect of that overall bill. Whether the overall bill is regulatory capture or not is irrelevant to the discussion of the merits of this specific section.
    - caminante 6y ago
      I appreciate your nuance. I'm skeptical about claims that the overall bill (i.e. de-regulation) and §230 (i.e. liability shields) weren't intertwined. My lay understanding is that §230 came about because (i) telecom providers and ISPs were getting sued for trafficking third-party content; and (ii) they started running to pro-business legislators for protection.[0] Again, my initial reaction was to the claim that the anti-trust controls would be effective in order to police things. That seems like a last resort; and requires first UNWINDING a lot of other legislation that appears to shield the formation of trusts. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

slg 6y ago

I legitimately don't understand your point here. You seem to be implying that this specific legislation is a form of regulatory capture. Meanwhile nothing in the Wikipedia article you linked seems to support that. It even notes that groups like the ACLU are strongly in support of Sec 230. I don't think the ACLU normally does the bidding of big telecom. Either way, if the root cause is telecom monopolies, let's actually try to fix monopolies rather creating a new category of private company that becomes a public good through its monopoly.

caminante 6y ago
My point is that an anti-trust lens isn't adequate if legislation keeps getting passed that rolls back regulation [0] and promotes formation of trusts. The CDA and §230 was part of the broader Telecommunications Act of 1996. Look at the outcome, which sure seems like "regulatory capture" to me: > Before the 1996 Act was passed, the largest four [Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers] owned less than half of all the lines in the country while, five years later, the largest four local telephone companies owned about 85% of all the lines in the country. It's also possible that the ACLU's interests will conveniently align with a subset of interests for third parties when the third party's liability is reduced. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996#Claims_made_in_opposition_to_the_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996...
- slg 6y ago
  But the current discussion is specifically about this one small aspect of that overall bill. Whether the overall bill is regulatory capture or not is irrelevant to the discussion of the merits of this specific section.
  - caminante 6y ago
    I appreciate your nuance. I'm skeptical about claims that the overall bill (i.e. de-regulation) and §230 (i.e. liability shields) weren't intertwined. My lay understanding is that §230 came about because (i) telecom providers and ISPs were getting sued for trafficking third-party content; and (ii) they started running to pro-business legislators for protection.[0] Again, my initial reaction was to the claim that the anti-trust controls would be effective in order to police things. That seems like a last resort; and requires first UNWINDING a lot of other legislation that appears to shield the formation of trusts. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...