6 ms·

Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's hold

Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies.

arkades 6y ago
You don't see the difference between "let's hold companies responsible for what people do as part of utilizing their services, while utilizing their services" and "let's hold companies responsible for what people do with an item they have purchased once entirely out of the supervision of that company, without any possible oversight or control"? I can't hold a skateboard co. responsible for what people do with skateboards they've purchased. I can most certainly hold a skate park responsible for what happens in the skate park.
- akersten 6y ago
  No, I really don't see the difference, because the service here is the product. The service is not a place of accommodation like a skate park. "Company makes thing, people do bad with thing, hold Company responsible" is a scary line of thought, and that's exact same scenario for both Facebook and guns. "Thing hurts person using it" is closer to your skate park analogy, and yeah, in that case, of course Company should be responsible for making a bad thing.
- belltaco 6y ago
  By that logic you would hold the phone company responsible for calls and texts happening over their network.
  - 0134340 6y ago
    Someone correct me if wrong but I think phone co's can get away with it as they're deemed an information carrier instead of a host. Besides, calls and texts are rather benign, it's visual media that tends to attract the most calls for censorship, not to also mention that real-time censorship of text and voice would be infeasible but much more viable for an information/media host.
    - arkades 6y ago
      And phone companies don't play an editorial role in determining what calls you get to hear, and who hears yours. Newspapers are responsible, even when they're publishing someone else's submission to them.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    That's a strawman.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    That is precisely the issue. Phone companies don't maintain control of their network to filter what calls and texts are allowed, don't maintain political rules on their network, etc. They are neutral carriers. Meanwhile google etc are pretending they are neutral carriers while actively filtering and choosing what is shown, now politically, showing they not only have the capability to control their platform but put it in practice. If they cannot allow others free speech they should not get special protection that prevents their liability. If a phone company started filtering political discussion I would absolutely think them responsible now for everything on their network. Your example is perfect to show how different both groups are in capability and practice.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    Phone calls are private communication. Isn't there's a law that prevents screening private communications?
  - efdee 6y ago
    A phone company doesn't have algorithms that decide which calls go through and which don't, or which calls are marked as important and which are not.
    - chooseaname 6y ago
      They don't? What about VOIP?
- chooseaname 6y ago
  Okay, so are electric companies responsible for people growing weed?
vnchr 6y ago
Internet platforms maintain control over their system whereas gun manufacturers give away control to gun buyers. The gun manufacturer ceases to maintain control and cannot be assigned responsibility after the sale of the good.
- akersten 6y ago
  So if a gun manufacturer did keep control over their gun, like with an electronic targeting system making decisions on behalf of the user[0], by the control argument, wouldn't they then have a responsibility to make sure it's used appropriately? [0]: https://www.tracking-point.com/ https://www.tracking-point.com/ (Yeah it's an aftermarket product, but for argument's sake, let's say it was 1st party)
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    You really misunderstand the tracking-point platform. It's a holdover system to calculate windage and drop on a moving target locally on the system, not some kind of visual analysis engine that does target determination. It provides "Hey, you need this much windage" not a shoot/no-shoot decision. It's also entirely on-system so the customer owns it, it's not running somewhere in the cloud.
- belltaco 6y ago
  So I guess the same logic applies to the phone companies for calls and texts, since they maintain control over it?
  - gfxgirl 6y ago
    I don't know what the right answer is but as far as analogies go the phone companies don't decide which calls you get and which of your incoming calls/texts to make a priority. Twitter and certainly Facebook do run algorithms that decide which of the 300 things the 1000 people you friended or follow should be displayed and in what order so they get decide what to emphasize as important by deciding what you see first and even what you see at all. In order to be the same as the phone company they'd have to give you the entire feed of every person you follow in chronological order, no filtering. I suppose one solution for them. They could default to no filtering and let users turn on filters. Then it would be the user's choosing the filters, not them. I'm not sure what scrutiny the filters themselves would need. A simple filter like "show nothing with the word 'poop' in it" would seem safe. A complex filter like "let this ML algo decide for me" I have no idea.
0134340 6y ago
Really, even though the platform you're using voluntarily chooses what you're allowed to post, as with almost all online platforms? Besides that, you're framing this wrong. If I host a platform as I host you in my house, I have a right and a duty to make sure you aren't committing illegal actions within my domain. This is a fairly universal law, written and unwritten, that who and what you host in your domain is your responsibility. Why should a few privileged platforms get a free pass?
- akersten 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure the argument "if you invite someone into your house, you're responsible for their illegal actions" is plainly incorrect, but I'd be happy to see a citation of that statute.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - vajrabum 6y ago
    There is a common exception in law for utilities. The power company is not responsible for whatever nefarious activity is enabled by supplying power. If you have an illegal marijuana grow operation the power company doesn't get prosecuted nor are they responsible in law for proactively identifying those growers. ISP and service providers don't want to be utilities because that requires that they provide a level playing field to their customers, but their business has all the characteristics of a utility and their customers would pretty much all prefer that over the current situation.
  - 0134340 6y ago
    You may not legally be held liable though in many cases you can. It's a common trope within law and I'd guess derived from common sense that if you host illegal content then you are therefore bound to scrutiny for potentially enabling it. So by extension, if you care about being a free person, you are responsible for it. Anything illegal in my home and I'm bound to scrutiny and law. Why should big co's get a free pass? To me, I couldn't care less either way but consistency in law would be just lovely.
throwaway_USD 6y ago
>"let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies. Sometimes the arms dealers (sellers not manufacture) are liable for the actions of the gun owners. There is no shortage of cases, I searched Walmart (because Walmart scale), but some examples: 1. Walmart Settles Lawsuit for Selling Gun Used in Murder by Neo-Nazi (https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/11/walmart-settles-lawsuit-for-selling-gun-used-in-murder-by-neo-nazi.html https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/11/walmart-settles-la...) 2. Wal-Mart sued over sale of bullets used in Pennsylvania murders (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pennsylvania-bullets/wal-mart-sued-over-sale-of-bullets-used-in-pennsylvania-murders-idUSKBN0UL2QD20160107 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pennsylvania-bullets/wal-...) Sellers of guns and ammunition assumed they were protected from liability by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
- internet_user 6y ago
  Pretty certain that settlement admits no guilt.
  - throwaway_USD 6y ago
    If you bothered to read the articles I linked they include many other examples such as: >last year, in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      The liability springs from enabling a straw purchase the plaintiff alleges should have been obvious and therefore the sale should have been denied. I imagine there is evidence (video, witnesses, etc.) that tend to indicate that the dealer knew or should have known he was facilitating a straw purchase.
      - throwaway_USD 6y ago
        Yes, you need a underlying cause of action...that's how law works. The point is liability, gun manufactures and dealers can be liable for the products used in killings by third parties...even after lawful sales. Take the case of the Sandy Hook victims that sued Remington. Initially their case was dismissed, because the lower court rules the manufacture is shielded from any liability under Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), but on appeal the Court overturned the ruling and declared in fact the victims families could sue under State law on separate causes of actions/theories. In that case they were suing Remington for violating the States Fair Trade Practices Act (on the factual basis that Remington marketed military style weapons to civilians). So you could just as easily shrug that of and say "well, liability there sprang from...", of course liability has to spring from somewhere. So in the case of tech, if you wanted to sue the platform, you need an underlying cause of action...whether that may be defamation, or trademark infringement, or copyright infringement. Liability for the tech platforms would have to spring from somewhere just like any other cause of action.
AzzieElbab 6y ago
It is more of a pre-elections warning shot. I expect a lot of negativity from both sides in November. So politicians cant allow platforms interfere.
belorn 6y ago
Gun manufacturers regulations and internet platform regulations are quite two different subjects with very little overlapping. If a platform controls and exercise editorial control when something is said, what is said, and who may speak and who may listen, then it may be useful to hold that platform liable. It is about intent, control and power. Gun manufacturers regulations however is full of rules that is about protecting society and international agreements. Selling guns to countries currently at war is problematic, so we hold those manufacturers responsible if they try to profit from running guns.

arkades 6y ago

You don't see the difference between "let's hold companies responsible for what people do as part of utilizing their services, while utilizing their services" and "let's hold companies responsible for what people do with an item they have purchased once entirely out of the supervision of that company, without any possible oversight or control"? I can't hold a skateboard co. responsible for what people do with skateboards they've purchased. I can most certainly hold a skate park responsible for what happens in the skate park.

akersten 6y ago
No, I really don't see the difference, because the service here is the product. The service is not a place of accommodation like a skate park. "Company makes thing, people do bad with thing, hold Company responsible" is a scary line of thought, and that's exact same scenario for both Facebook and guns. "Thing hurts person using it" is closer to your skate park analogy, and yeah, in that case, of course Company should be responsible for making a bad thing.
belltaco 6y ago
By that logic you would hold the phone company responsible for calls and texts happening over their network.
- 0134340 6y ago
  Someone correct me if wrong but I think phone co's can get away with it as they're deemed an information carrier instead of a host. Besides, calls and texts are rather benign, it's visual media that tends to attract the most calls for censorship, not to also mention that real-time censorship of text and voice would be infeasible but much more viable for an information/media host.
  - arkades 6y ago
    And phone companies don't play an editorial role in determining what calls you get to hear, and who hears yours. Newspapers are responsible, even when they're publishing someone else's submission to them.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  That's a strawman.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  That is precisely the issue. Phone companies don't maintain control of their network to filter what calls and texts are allowed, don't maintain political rules on their network, etc. They are neutral carriers. Meanwhile google etc are pretending they are neutral carriers while actively filtering and choosing what is shown, now politically, showing they not only have the capability to control their platform but put it in practice. If they cannot allow others free speech they should not get special protection that prevents their liability. If a phone company started filtering political discussion I would absolutely think them responsible now for everything on their network. Your example is perfect to show how different both groups are in capability and practice.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Phone calls are private communication. Isn't there's a law that prevents screening private communications?
- efdee 6y ago
  A phone company doesn't have algorithms that decide which calls go through and which don't, or which calls are marked as important and which are not.
  - chooseaname 6y ago
    They don't? What about VOIP?
chooseaname 6y ago
Okay, so are electric companies responsible for people growing weed?

vnchr 6y ago

Internet platforms maintain control over their system whereas gun manufacturers give away control to gun buyers. The gun manufacturer ceases to maintain control and cannot be assigned responsibility after the sale of the good.

akersten 6y ago
So if a gun manufacturer did keep control over their gun, like with an electronic targeting system making decisions on behalf of the user[0], by the control argument, wouldn't they then have a responsibility to make sure it's used appropriately? [0]: https://www.tracking-point.com/ https://www.tracking-point.com/ (Yeah it's an aftermarket product, but for argument's sake, let's say it was 1st party)
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  You really misunderstand the tracking-point platform. It's a holdover system to calculate windage and drop on a moving target locally on the system, not some kind of visual analysis engine that does target determination. It provides "Hey, you need this much windage" not a shoot/no-shoot decision. It's also entirely on-system so the customer owns it, it's not running somewhere in the cloud.
belltaco 6y ago
So I guess the same logic applies to the phone companies for calls and texts, since they maintain control over it?
- gfxgirl 6y ago
  I don't know what the right answer is but as far as analogies go the phone companies don't decide which calls you get and which of your incoming calls/texts to make a priority. Twitter and certainly Facebook do run algorithms that decide which of the 300 things the 1000 people you friended or follow should be displayed and in what order so they get decide what to emphasize as important by deciding what you see first and even what you see at all. In order to be the same as the phone company they'd have to give you the entire feed of every person you follow in chronological order, no filtering. I suppose one solution for them. They could default to no filtering and let users turn on filters. Then it would be the user's choosing the filters, not them. I'm not sure what scrutiny the filters themselves would need. A simple filter like "show nothing with the word 'poop' in it" would seem safe. A complex filter like "let this ML algo decide for me" I have no idea.

0134340 6y ago

Really, even though the platform you're using voluntarily chooses what you're allowed to post, as with almost all online platforms? Besides that, you're framing this wrong. If I host a platform as I host you in my house, I have a right and a duty to make sure you aren't committing illegal actions within my domain. This is a fairly universal law, written and unwritten, that who and what you host in your domain is your responsibility. Why should a few privileged platforms get a free pass?

akersten 6y ago
I'm pretty sure the argument "if you invite someone into your house, you're responsible for their illegal actions" is plainly incorrect, but I'd be happy to see a citation of that statute.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- vajrabum 6y ago
  There is a common exception in law for utilities. The power company is not responsible for whatever nefarious activity is enabled by supplying power. If you have an illegal marijuana grow operation the power company doesn't get prosecuted nor are they responsible in law for proactively identifying those growers. ISP and service providers don't want to be utilities because that requires that they provide a level playing field to their customers, but their business has all the characteristics of a utility and their customers would pretty much all prefer that over the current situation.
- 0134340 6y ago
  You may not legally be held liable though in many cases you can. It's a common trope within law and I'd guess derived from common sense that if you host illegal content then you are therefore bound to scrutiny for potentially enabling it. So by extension, if you care about being a free person, you are responsible for it. Anything illegal in my home and I'm bound to scrutiny and law. Why should big co's get a free pass? To me, I couldn't care less either way but consistency in law would be just lovely.

throwaway_USD 6y ago

>"let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies. Sometimes the arms dealers (sellers not manufacture) are liable for the actions of the gun owners. There is no shortage of cases, I searched Walmart (because Walmart scale), but some examples: 1. Walmart Settles Lawsuit for Selling Gun Used in Murder by Neo-Nazi (https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/11/walmart-settles-lawsuit-for-selling-gun-used-in-murder-by-neo-nazi.html https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/11/walmart-settles-la...) 2. Wal-Mart sued over sale of bullets used in Pennsylvania murders (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pennsylvania-bullets/wal-mart-sued-over-sale-of-bullets-used-in-pennsylvania-murders-idUSKBN0UL2QD20160107 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pennsylvania-bullets/wal-...) Sellers of guns and ammunition assumed they were protected from liability by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

internet_user 6y ago
Pretty certain that settlement admits no guilt.
- throwaway_USD 6y ago
  If you bothered to read the articles I linked they include many other examples such as: >last year, in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    The liability springs from enabling a straw purchase the plaintiff alleges should have been obvious and therefore the sale should have been denied. I imagine there is evidence (video, witnesses, etc.) that tend to indicate that the dealer knew or should have known he was facilitating a straw purchase.
    - throwaway_USD 6y ago
      Yes, you need a underlying cause of action...that's how law works. The point is liability, gun manufactures and dealers can be liable for the products used in killings by third parties...even after lawful sales. Take the case of the Sandy Hook victims that sued Remington. Initially their case was dismissed, because the lower court rules the manufacture is shielded from any liability under Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), but on appeal the Court overturned the ruling and declared in fact the victims families could sue under State law on separate causes of actions/theories. In that case they were suing Remington for violating the States Fair Trade Practices Act (on the factual basis that Remington marketed military style weapons to civilians). So you could just as easily shrug that of and say "well, liability there sprang from...", of course liability has to spring from somewhere. So in the case of tech, if you wanted to sue the platform, you need an underlying cause of action...whether that may be defamation, or trademark infringement, or copyright infringement. Liability for the tech platforms would have to spring from somewhere just like any other cause of action.

AzzieElbab 6y ago

It is more of a pre-elections warning shot. I expect a lot of negativity from both sides in November. So politicians cant allow platforms interfere.

belorn 6y ago

Gun manufacturers regulations and internet platform regulations are quite two different subjects with very little overlapping. If a platform controls and exercise editorial control when something is said, what is said, and who may speak and who may listen, then it may be useful to hold that platform liable. It is about intent, control and power. Gun manufacturers regulations however is full of rules that is about protecting society and international agreements. Selling guns to countries currently at war is problematic, so we hold those manufacturers responsible if they try to profit from running guns.