3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- loktarogar 6y ago
  > Not to mention of course that internet platforms do exist that handle individual content reliably I'm not talking about whether they can or not. The case that makes them unable to exist is when one single item slips past their moderation net. If they're liable, that's the end of them. Sure I want them held to a higher standard as well, but they will not be able to exist at all if they were liable for user content. None of them. The ones that are moderating successfully and the ones that aren't. User content sites will have too much liability to be able to run. That's the end of social media - for everyone.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Can't you just not let your kids use the internet if it's that bad? If lots of people feel like you can't they just have their own network without blackjack or hookers. Call it the ckeanernet and allow selective content like Wikipedia from the broader internet.

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.

loktarogar 6y ago
> Not to mention of course that internet platforms do exist that handle individual content reliably I'm not talking about whether they can or not. The case that makes them unable to exist is when one single item slips past their moderation net. If they're liable, that's the end of them. Sure I want them held to a higher standard as well, but they will not be able to exist at all if they were liable for user content. None of them. The ones that are moderating successfully and the ones that aren't. User content sites will have too much liability to be able to run. That's the end of social media - for everyone.
michaelmrose 6y ago
Can't you just not let your kids use the internet if it's that bad? If lots of people feel like you can't they just have their own network without blackjack or hookers. Call it the ckeanernet and allow selective content like Wikipedia from the broader internet.