4 ms·

Policing the Internet: A Bad Idea in 1996 and Today

143 points by _sbrk 6y ago

codekansas 6y ago
A somewhat confusing point: the author of this is Chris Cox the former US Congressman [1], not Chris Cox the Facebook CPO [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cox_(Facebook) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cox_(Facebook)
- throwgeorge 6y ago
  former republican congressman what a coincidence
Barrin92 6y ago
The legislative history is interesting but the arguments in the article aren't great. From invented phrases like "neo-regulators" (I think they are just called regulators and that is their job), to "25% of them didn't have an email account", a lot of it boils down to "Ok boomer, you don't understand the internet". I don't understand at all how technical details of the internet should be guideline for the limits that the law imposes on online platforms. If there is a social norm and already laws that prohibit say, pornography being available to children, on every medium, then internet platforms shouldn't get a free pass simply because they're internet platforms. (opinions on the particular issue aside for a minute). I'm a little tired of somehow having to accept that internet giants can do what they want and deserve a special role in society because they're internet companies, and every critic is brushed off with personal attacks.
- loktarogar 6y ago
  > then internet platforms shouldn't get a free pass simply because they're internet platforms. Internet platforms cannot exist if they're liable for individual things that users put on their platforms.
  - jgeada 6y ago
    And that is society’s problem how? As a society we’ve decided that some standards are important enough to be codified into law. It doesn’t matter to us if you’re violating it by engraving cuneiform into clay tablets or using electrons in a distributed platform. Everyone must follow the same laws, no special pass for you because you get to make money from the violation.
    - danShumway 6y ago
      It's society's problem because society is better for the Internet existing. I don't think that's a seriously disputable point outside of basic contrarianism. For all its faults, society today is better than it was 40-50 years ago on almost every measurable axis. We've made faster progress on human rights in the past 40-50 years than we did in the first 150-160 years of our country's history. We know more about the wider world now than we ever did. More minority communities have mainstream voices now then ever did in the past. We should, of course, try to improve the Internet; there's plenty wrong with it. We certainly don't want to stay where we are now. But we are a better world because we are more connected. Getting rid of the Internet because "other systems don't get a pass" would be cutting off our own nose to spite our face. As a society, we have a vested interest in a democratizing platform that allows ordinary people to publish information and coordinate on an unprecedented scale. So if a set of standards don't allow the globalized democratizing communication platform to exist, then the standards are wrong.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    Okay, but how is that our problem? If your company can't exist without pouring lead into the river it doesn't exist. That's exactly what I'm asking, why are internet platforms supposed to let Frankenstein's monster lose on the world and we are supposed to deal with the consequences? If a scientist can't guarantee that their scientific experiments comply with the safety standards we demand of them they can't do them. Not to mention of course that internet platforms do exist that handle individual content reliably, they're just smaller and don't collect the economic rents that Facebook does.
    - 6y ago
- twirlock 6y ago
  I'm tired of somehow having to accept that giant corporations and their lobbyists get to dictate what I'm allowed to read on the internet.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    Which corporations get to dictate what you're allowed to read on the Internet? Are you blocked from accessing a particular server?
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      The grandparent post was calling for internet censorship.
      - lern_too_spel 6y ago
        No, the GGP post said that Internet censorship by corporations is already happening, and he's "tired of having to accept [it]." The article itself is about proposals for government censorship of the Internet that are not being pushed by corporations.
        allarm 6y ago
        So you’re saying that the censorship by corporations is not a thing? )
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        I'm saying that corporations don't dictate what he can and cannot read. He can access whatever server he wants that serves whatever information the server wants to send.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  The actual quote is >Only 26% of members had an email address. That is to say 74% didn't have an email address Also >of senators who voted for his legislation, 52% had no Internet connection. It's not objectionable to propose that they hadn't bothered to use the thing they were trying to regulate out of existence. The decentralized, global, many to many nature of the internet is why its just not possible to regulate like TV. Whose norms? Just like you don't care for my idea of norms France doesn't care for the United States who doesn't care for Zimbabwes. Even if we could agree how do you review content created by billions? Sisyphean doesn't begin to describe it. In short if you don't want your kids to see boobies please install boobie blocking software on your own computers rather than expecting billions of people in 100 odd nations to conform to your households standards.

143 points by _sbrk 6y ago

A somewhat confusing point: the author of this is Chris Cox the former US Congressman [1], not Chris Cox the Facebook CPO [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cox_(Facebook) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cox_(Facebook)

throwgeorge 6y ago
former republican congressman what a coincidence

Barrin92 6y ago

The legislative history is interesting but the arguments in the article aren't great. From invented phrases like "neo-regulators" (I think they are just called regulators and that is their job), to "25% of them didn't have an email account", a lot of it boils down to "Ok boomer, you don't understand the internet". I don't understand at all how technical details of the internet should be guideline for the limits that the law imposes on online platforms. If there is a social norm and already laws that prohibit say, pornography being available to children, on every medium, then internet platforms shouldn't get a free pass simply because they're internet platforms. (opinions on the particular issue aside for a minute). I'm a little tired of somehow having to accept that internet giants can do what they want and deserve a special role in society because they're internet companies, and every critic is brushed off with personal attacks.

loktarogar 6y ago
> then internet platforms shouldn't get a free pass simply because they're internet platforms. Internet platforms cannot exist if they're liable for individual things that users put on their platforms.
- jgeada 6y ago
  And that is society’s problem how? As a society we’ve decided that some standards are important enough to be codified into law. It doesn’t matter to us if you’re violating it by engraving cuneiform into clay tablets or using electrons in a distributed platform. Everyone must follow the same laws, no special pass for you because you get to make money from the violation.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    It's society's problem because society is better for the Internet existing. I don't think that's a seriously disputable point outside of basic contrarianism. For all its faults, society today is better than it was 40-50 years ago on almost every measurable axis. We've made faster progress on human rights in the past 40-50 years than we did in the first 150-160 years of our country's history. We know more about the wider world now than we ever did. More minority communities have mainstream voices now then ever did in the past. We should, of course, try to improve the Internet; there's plenty wrong with it. We certainly don't want to stay where we are now. But we are a better world because we are more connected. Getting rid of the Internet because "other systems don't get a pass" would be cutting off our own nose to spite our face. As a society, we have a vested interest in a democratizing platform that allows ordinary people to publish information and coordinate on an unprecedented scale. So if a set of standards don't allow the globalized democratizing communication platform to exist, then the standards are wrong.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  Okay, but how is that our problem? If your company can't exist without pouring lead into the river it doesn't exist. That's exactly what I'm asking, why are internet platforms supposed to let Frankenstein's monster lose on the world and we are supposed to deal with the consequences? If a scientist can't guarantee that their scientific experiments comply with the safety standards we demand of them they can't do them. Not to mention of course that internet platforms do exist that handle individual content reliably, they're just smaller and don't collect the economic rents that Facebook does.
  - 6y ago
twirlock 6y ago
I'm tired of somehow having to accept that giant corporations and their lobbyists get to dictate what I'm allowed to read on the internet.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Which corporations get to dictate what you're allowed to read on the Internet? Are you blocked from accessing a particular server?
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    The grandparent post was calling for internet censorship.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      No, the GGP post said that Internet censorship by corporations is already happening, and he's "tired of having to accept [it]." The article itself is about proposals for government censorship of the Internet that are not being pushed by corporations.
      - allarm 6y ago
        So you’re saying that the censorship by corporations is not a thing? )
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        I'm saying that corporations don't dictate what he can and cannot read. He can access whatever server he wants that serves whatever information the server wants to send.
michaelmrose 6y ago
The actual quote is >Only 26% of members had an email address. That is to say 74% didn't have an email address Also >of senators who voted for his legislation, 52% had no Internet connection. It's not objectionable to propose that they hadn't bothered to use the thing they were trying to regulate out of existence. The decentralized, global, many to many nature of the internet is why its just not possible to regulate like TV. Whose norms? Just like you don't care for my idea of norms France doesn't care for the United States who doesn't care for Zimbabwes. Even if we could agree how do you review content created by billions? Sisyphean doesn't begin to describe it. In short if you don't want your kids to see boobies please install boobie blocking software on your own computers rather than expecting billions of people in 100 odd nations to conform to your households standards.