4 ms·

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 thoug

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.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      > I wasn't ready to give an opinion! I was just stating the circumstances :) Any insightful comment, even "just" descriptive, deserves a response, nay, a challenge to force the speaker to tease out more! :) And I'm glad I did because your opinion is spot on, in my opinion.
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.

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.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > I wasn't ready to give an opinion! I was just stating the circumstances :) Any insightful comment, even "just" descriptive, deserves a response, nay, a challenge to force the speaker to tease out more! :) And I'm glad I did because your opinion is spot on, in my opinion.

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.