8 ms·

That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech. Social networks are private companies built for profit. For better

That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech. Social networks are private companies built for profit. For better or worse they should be able to censor anything that's not good for their business. Hell, you can't even post a nipple on Facebook.

brigandish 6y ago
Facebook and Twitter are ostensibly platforms. The analogy would be if a TV network rented out studios and cameras but prevented you from hiring them even though you had the money because they didn't like you or what you were going to film or had filmed or might film. If they were a TV channel or programme then they'd have no bother refusing you. And that's the nub, are they a platform or are they a publisher? If they're the former and you allow them to discriminate then what's your argument against other businesses discriminating? Can't see that ending well. If, however, we accept that they're publishers - which in my view they are, as they edit what can be seen in several ways - then by all means let them discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media companies.
- prawn 6y ago
  Might be missing your point, but a studio for rent does deny paying customers if it wants. Conference facilities might deny particular events. TV networks deny ads that are otherwise legal. But I don't think it's needed in the argument. As you say, the interesting distinction is around platform versus publisher and any legal protections you gain from posing as the former.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    There's only so far a metaphor can be pushed, unfortunately (or fortunately?), and I completely agree, the real point is the distinction and whether it applies.
- hnick 6y ago
  TV channels refuse advertising based on politics or community standards. That's pretty similar - provide your own content, and rent airtime, but get rejected because of what you say.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    That's true but let's take it a step forward - if the TV station published a list of rules and your content did not cross the line but you were denied, would that be okay? Would retroactive application of rules be fine, or new rules created and then retroactively applied? Would it be okay if they refused simply because of who you were? Or what you did elsewhere? These kind of questions seem to be more applicable if we're comparing to Twitter et al.
    - hnick 6y ago
      I wasn't ready to give an opinion! I was just stating the circumstances :) But, if I'm going to answer I think legal issues are grey and it can be tough to accept as a programmer dealing in binary. There aren't many absolute rules and sometimes a rule works well at one scale but not another. Part of the reason we should avoid monopolies is so people and governments can leave companies alone and those who disagree with their rules can go elsewhere because they have options. But this is in complete opposition to products and platforms that flourish because of network effects. By its very nature, Twitter wants to be the only game in town. I think that changes things and opens them up to scrutiny because we have fewer realistic options. So as a non-answer, if we had many viable social networks or TV channels to choose from I'd be happy with them arbitrarily deciding who gets to play in their playground for any or no reason (as long as it's only in that one place, and there's no secret cabal or cartel). Protected reasons and classes aside. Keeping in mind, many times rules aren't rules, they're flagged as guidelines and subject to change for subjective reasons. But I don't think that really reflects what is going on in modern social media networks. They are similar but distinct, each is used for different types of speech, and the key players dominate their niche. Users can choose to some degree what they prefer to receive. Networks also choose for the users via their feed algorithms. So they are already taking on the role of arbiter and have been for some time. That sounds more like a publisher to me, as you say. They don't change the content of each post - but they do change the collection of content you get presented, just like a magazine editor rejecting articles and putting together this month's issue. Except every single article is tagged opinion. On top of that I think we are just running up against another "too big to fail" situation. They're our only platform to communicate this way, so we don't like the idea of them suppressing speech, and speech can be inflammatory, inciteful, or libelous. That's not really incompatible with free speech in other areas, and I think once a platform reaches a certain size we should treat it as a public arena. This would be consistent with not allowing them to remove posts for arbitrary reasons, but allow them to do it if they think it falls under one of those categories.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > then by all means let them discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media companies. What rules are those? Can you give an example of such a rule and what it would look like if it were applied to twitter?
  - brigandish 6y ago
    The rule is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This via the EFF[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. In other words they'd be liable for what is published on their site whether by them or a third party. Platform is not a legal term, it's a colloquial distinction from publisher, which in this case refers to either the "interactive computer service" (e.g. Twitter) or the third party (e.g. the tweeter). Interactive computer service isn't as catchy. > Can you give an example of such a rule and what it would look like if it were applied to twitter? My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers. Ok but clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content. In effect, it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down. Would you say that fairly describes your position or am I misinterpreting you?
      - brigandish 6y ago
        > clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. > it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down That is technically known as a false dilemma. - They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action, no action for things off of the "platform", no new rules that just happen to affect their political opponents - They can refrain from reframing content - They can decide to become a smaller company (maybe more profitable (at last;), focus can help, niches help, size isn't everything) - They can hire more moderators - They can make the algorithmic tools they use available to users, if you don't want to read "deplorable" content then why not give you they power to make the choice and others the power to continue to read it? - They can make the rules clearer, tighter, more accessible. My Lord, there are so many choices available and they're not all mutually exclusive, and this isn't even an exhaustive list.
akira2501 6y ago
> That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech. We do that, and have since 1976. Any cable provider in a city with more than 3500 residents is required to put up 4 public access channels and studios and allow the public to use them and broadcast on them. > Social networks are private companies built for profit. To what extent do current laws provide exclusions for them and their business model? Do we deserve something in return for that? > Hell, you can't even post a nipple on Facebook. Precedent exists here as well. Free public speech does not include broadcasting of materials of a prurient interest at any time. This is separate from the "seven dirty words" which are generally excluded outside of the 'watershed' which is typically 10pm to 6am in most cities. I'm fairly libertarian, so I'm uncomfortable with the question, but there has to be some objective method of determining the extent to which "internet domains" are to be considered "leased from the public" the way we do broadcast licenses. We've already seen certain websites with particularly vile, but legally protected, points of view have their domains taken away from them. If speech can be so easily marginalized, doesn't the public have some interest in claiming domain over some of these seemingly "private" systems?
JesusChrist2020 6y ago
The Communist Party of China has the great firewall for a reason. Everyone knows that technology can be used to shape the narrative by silencing some voices and amplifying others. That is too much power for anyone.
derrick_jensen 6y ago
I agree with you in spirit, but the Fairness Doctrine in the United States was a variation of this, where the FCC required that approximately equal time and attention be paid to all sides of a major issue. Ronald Reagan removed this in the 80s, and helped popularize conservative talk radio. The justification was that the limited bandwidth of television made it in the public interest to regulate its influence. The internet is much higher bandwidth, so the same argument doesn't hold water. EDIT: What qualified as "equal" and "all sides of a major issue" were up to the discretion of the FCC, so enforcement was fairly ad hoc
- aniro 6y ago
  The justification for the Fairness Doctrine was that the airwaves were a public resource and that anyone using that resource was required to use it responsibly and in the interest of the public.
  - soylentcola 6y ago
    Right...specifically, a limited public resource. The simple version goes like: Broadcast spectrum is a limited resource. Said resource is owned by the public but since it is limited, you need a license to make use of it. In order to retain a license, you need to operate for the public's interest, convenience, and necessity. It's also the basic reasoning behind such things as content restrictions and the system by which you can complain about something that is broadcast. If enough people complain about something you broadcast, it can be argued that you are not serving the public's interest and so be fined or lose your license to broadcast. It's why cable programming is more restricted by a network's desire to avoid pushback from advertisers or cable carriers due to complaints (rather than anything under the jurisdiction of the FCC). They aren't required to serve the public interest in the same way, but market forces apply some of the same pressures. In this case, I see social media platforms as being more like cable networks than broadcast networks. You won't see specific government content restrictions on most (legal) content hosted on these services because they don't require a license. However, they still face backlash if they piss off enough customers and/or advertisers.
dionidium 6y ago
That was indeed the status quo on broadcast television for many years: > The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
geodel 6y ago
> For better or worse they should be able to censor anything that's not good for their business. Well with that logic popular politicians are good for FB's business and hence must not be censored.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  They presumably take a broader view than this quarters profits. How did business fare after Germany lost ww2?
madengr 6y ago
Cable TV is required. The KKK ran a show on a NYC public access channel back in the 90’s. Of course I could go cut the data lines running through the right-of-way on my property. I don’t agree with how these big data companies are censoring, so maybe I will censor them.
musicale 6y ago
> That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech Wasn't that the idea of Public Access Television?
- xenospn 6y ago
  Try airing a show called Happy Nazi Fun Time on public access. See how that works.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    Heil Honey I'm Home! did make it all the way to broadcasting one episode. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heil_Honey_I%27m_Home%21 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heil_Honey_I%27m_Home%21
    - soylentcola 6y ago
      In fairness, this was more of a spoof that was canceled due to customer dissatisfaction and finding it to be in poor taste. It was also on a satellite network so neither subject to any public broadcasting guidelines or other OTA broadcast restrictions. I could totally imagine a Monty Python sketch depicting Hitler in an absurd/comedic situation being rebroadcast on US public TV without issue. I think the previous comment was referring to a hypothetical pro-Nazi program.
hkai 6y ago
A great example of why major companies should not regulate people's lives is WeChat in China. Some ethnic minorities are banned from using it, which is almost the same as not having a credit card in the US. You can kind of get around without it, but not really. Many tech companies are simply utilities now. They should not be allowed to refuse service in the same way as electric companies are not allowed to refuse you service - except in extreme circumstances.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Can you please name one platform that is like this in America?

brigandish 6y ago

Facebook and Twitter are ostensibly platforms. The analogy would be if a TV network rented out studios and cameras but prevented you from hiring them even though you had the money because they didn't like you or what you were going to film or had filmed or might film. If they were a TV channel or programme then they'd have no bother refusing you. And that's the nub, are they a platform or are they a publisher? If they're the former and you allow them to discriminate then what's your argument against other businesses discriminating? Can't see that ending well. If, however, we accept that they're publishers - which in my view they are, as they edit what can be seen in several ways - then by all means let them discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media companies.

prawn 6y ago
Might be missing your point, but a studio for rent does deny paying customers if it wants. Conference facilities might deny particular events. TV networks deny ads that are otherwise legal. But I don't think it's needed in the argument. As you say, the interesting distinction is around platform versus publisher and any legal protections you gain from posing as the former.
- brigandish 6y ago
  There's only so far a metaphor can be pushed, unfortunately (or fortunately?), and I completely agree, the real point is the distinction and whether it applies.
hnick 6y ago
TV channels refuse advertising based on politics or community standards. That's pretty similar - provide your own content, and rent airtime, but get rejected because of what you say.
- brigandish 6y ago
  That's true but let's take it a step forward - if the TV station published a list of rules and your content did not cross the line but you were denied, would that be okay? Would retroactive application of rules be fine, or new rules created and then retroactively applied? Would it be okay if they refused simply because of who you were? Or what you did elsewhere? These kind of questions seem to be more applicable if we're comparing to Twitter et al.
  - hnick 6y ago
    I wasn't ready to give an opinion! I was just stating the circumstances :) But, if I'm going to answer I think legal issues are grey and it can be tough to accept as a programmer dealing in binary. There aren't many absolute rules and sometimes a rule works well at one scale but not another. Part of the reason we should avoid monopolies is so people and governments can leave companies alone and those who disagree with their rules can go elsewhere because they have options. But this is in complete opposition to products and platforms that flourish because of network effects. By its very nature, Twitter wants to be the only game in town. I think that changes things and opens them up to scrutiny because we have fewer realistic options. So as a non-answer, if we had many viable social networks or TV channels to choose from I'd be happy with them arbitrarily deciding who gets to play in their playground for any or no reason (as long as it's only in that one place, and there's no secret cabal or cartel). Protected reasons and classes aside. Keeping in mind, many times rules aren't rules, they're flagged as guidelines and subject to change for subjective reasons. But I don't think that really reflects what is going on in modern social media networks. They are similar but distinct, each is used for different types of speech, and the key players dominate their niche. Users can choose to some degree what they prefer to receive. Networks also choose for the users via their feed algorithms. So they are already taking on the role of arbiter and have been for some time. That sounds more like a publisher to me, as you say. They don't change the content of each post - but they do change the collection of content you get presented, just like a magazine editor rejecting articles and putting together this month's issue. Except every single article is tagged opinion. On top of that I think we are just running up against another "too big to fail" situation. They're our only platform to communicate this way, so we don't like the idea of them suppressing speech, and speech can be inflammatory, inciteful, or libelous. That's not really incompatible with free speech in other areas, and I think once a platform reaches a certain size we should treat it as a public arena. This would be consistent with not allowing them to remove posts for arbitrary reasons, but allow them to do it if they think it falls under one of those categories.
root_axis 6y ago
> then by all means let them discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media companies. What rules are those? Can you give an example of such a rule and what it would look like if it were applied to twitter?
- brigandish 6y ago
  The rule is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This via the EFF[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. In other words they'd be liable for what is published on their site whether by them or a third party. Platform is not a legal term, it's a colloquial distinction from publisher, which in this case refers to either the "interactive computer service" (e.g. Twitter) or the third party (e.g. the tweeter). Interactive computer service isn't as catchy. > Can you give an example of such a rule and what it would look like if it were applied to twitter? My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers. Ok but clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content. In effect, it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down. Would you say that fairly describes your position or am I misinterpreting you?
    - brigandish 6y ago
      > clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. > it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down That is technically known as a false dilemma. - They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action, no action for things off of the "platform", no new rules that just happen to affect their political opponents - They can refrain from reframing content - They can decide to become a smaller company (maybe more profitable (at last;), focus can help, niches help, size isn't everything) - They can hire more moderators - They can make the algorithmic tools they use available to users, if you don't want to read "deplorable" content then why not give you they power to make the choice and others the power to continue to read it? - They can make the rules clearer, tighter, more accessible. My Lord, there are so many choices available and they're not all mutually exclusive, and this isn't even an exhaustive list.

akira2501 6y ago

> That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech. We do that, and have since 1976. Any cable provider in a city with more than 3500 residents is required to put up 4 public access channels and studios and allow the public to use them and broadcast on them. > Social networks are private companies built for profit. To what extent do current laws provide exclusions for them and their business model? Do we deserve something in return for that? > Hell, you can't even post a nipple on Facebook. Precedent exists here as well. Free public speech does not include broadcasting of materials of a prurient interest at any time. This is separate from the "seven dirty words" which are generally excluded outside of the 'watershed' which is typically 10pm to 6am in most cities. I'm fairly libertarian, so I'm uncomfortable with the question, but there has to be some objective method of determining the extent to which "internet domains" are to be considered "leased from the public" the way we do broadcast licenses. We've already seen certain websites with particularly vile, but legally protected, points of view have their domains taken away from them. If speech can be so easily marginalized, doesn't the public have some interest in claiming domain over some of these seemingly "private" systems?

JesusChrist2020 6y ago

The Communist Party of China has the great firewall for a reason. Everyone knows that technology can be used to shape the narrative by silencing some voices and amplifying others. That is too much power for anyone.

derrick_jensen 6y ago

I agree with you in spirit, but the Fairness Doctrine in the United States was a variation of this, where the FCC required that approximately equal time and attention be paid to all sides of a major issue. Ronald Reagan removed this in the 80s, and helped popularize conservative talk radio. The justification was that the limited bandwidth of television made it in the public interest to regulate its influence. The internet is much higher bandwidth, so the same argument doesn't hold water. EDIT: What qualified as "equal" and "all sides of a major issue" were up to the discretion of the FCC, so enforcement was fairly ad hoc

aniro 6y ago
The justification for the Fairness Doctrine was that the airwaves were a public resource and that anyone using that resource was required to use it responsibly and in the interest of the public.
- soylentcola 6y ago
  Right...specifically, a limited public resource. The simple version goes like: Broadcast spectrum is a limited resource. Said resource is owned by the public but since it is limited, you need a license to make use of it. In order to retain a license, you need to operate for the public's interest, convenience, and necessity. It's also the basic reasoning behind such things as content restrictions and the system by which you can complain about something that is broadcast. If enough people complain about something you broadcast, it can be argued that you are not serving the public's interest and so be fined or lose your license to broadcast. It's why cable programming is more restricted by a network's desire to avoid pushback from advertisers or cable carriers due to complaints (rather than anything under the jurisdiction of the FCC). They aren't required to serve the public interest in the same way, but market forces apply some of the same pressures. In this case, I see social media platforms as being more like cable networks than broadcast networks. You won't see specific government content restrictions on most (legal) content hosted on these services because they don't require a license. However, they still face backlash if they piss off enough customers and/or advertisers.

dionidium 6y ago

That was indeed the status quo on broadcast television for many years: > The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

geodel 6y ago

> For better or worse they should be able to censor anything that's not good for their business. Well with that logic popular politicians are good for FB's business and hence must not be censored.

michaelmrose 6y ago
They presumably take a broader view than this quarters profits. How did business fare after Germany lost ww2?

madengr 6y ago

Cable TV is required. The KKK ran a show on a NYC public access channel back in the 90’s. Of course I could go cut the data lines running through the right-of-way on my property. I don’t agree with how these big data companies are censoring, so maybe I will censor them.

musicale 6y ago

> That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech Wasn't that the idea of Public Access Television?

xenospn 6y ago
Try airing a show called Happy Nazi Fun Time on public access. See how that works.
- Izkata 6y ago
  Heil Honey I'm Home! did make it all the way to broadcasting one episode. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heil_Honey_I%27m_Home%21 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heil_Honey_I%27m_Home%21
  - soylentcola 6y ago
    In fairness, this was more of a spoof that was canceled due to customer dissatisfaction and finding it to be in poor taste. It was also on a satellite network so neither subject to any public broadcasting guidelines or other OTA broadcast restrictions. I could totally imagine a Monty Python sketch depicting Hitler in an absurd/comedic situation being rebroadcast on US public TV without issue. I think the previous comment was referring to a hypothetical pro-Nazi program.

hkai 6y ago

A great example of why major companies should not regulate people's lives is WeChat in China. Some ethnic minorities are banned from using it, which is almost the same as not having a credit card in the US. You can kind of get around without it, but not really. Many tech companies are simply utilities now. They should not be allowed to refuse service in the same way as electric companies are not allowed to refuse you service - except in extreme circumstances.

michaelmrose 6y ago
Can you please name one platform that is like this in America?