4 ms·

This definition of censorship is bad and must be changed. Large general-purpose platforms should be forced do distribute all content which is not otherwise ill

by kanox 6y ago

This definition of censorship is bad and must be changed. Large general-purpose platforms should be forced do distribute all content which is not otherwise illegal, and only perform removal based through the standard legal system.

bumbledraven 6y ago
It’s hard to make a free speech site whose content guidelines follow the First Amendment, because the credit card networks will ban you. Gab, for example, can only accept checks and crypto.
- Natanael_L 6y ago
  Even they doesn't actually strive to allow everything that's legal.
- numpad0 6y ago
  ban credit card network ban you by law. if it can't be done(yes it can't be done) so is forcing platforms be fair(that can't happen as well).
ziddoap 6y ago
I'm not on Googles side here, but... As nice as your sentiment is, there are plenty of real problems which have to be addressed. Who defines, and what are the definitions of "Large" and "General Purpose" in this context? Am I allowed to moderate content as fits with my ToS at X number of users, but at X+1 users I become forced to publish all content which is "not otherwise illegal"? In regards to what is "not otherwise illegal", which laws from which country apply? How does one combat things such as excessive spam? If I am forced to allow any content which is "otherwise not illegal", and my service becomes literally unusable because of someone posting 10,000 cat pictures per second (cats aren't illegal, I'm forced to distribute the cats), what is my recourse? Am I still allowed to rate limit? Because that, boiled down, is censoring a users ability to post "otherwise not illegal" content.
- benibela 6y ago
  The courts decide what is a large platform. And they decide what is "not illegal" In Germany, there were actually cases where courts have ruled that facebook is not allowed to delete non illegal posts: https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Oberlandesgericht-Meinungsfreiheit-sticht-Hausrecht-bei-Facebook-4156833.html https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Oberlandesgericht-Me... One big part of the argument of the judges was based on contracts. When a user makes a facebook account, it creates a contract between the user and facebook. The user agrees to share their data for ads and stuff, and facebook agrees to publish their posts. Thus they have to do that, they cannot just decide to not publish some posts, that would be a contract violation. Just like when you order a pizza with 10 toppings, the pizza service cannot deliver a pizza with 8 toppings and still expect you to pay the full price And as second part, the court has ruled that a clause "we choose which posts to publish" would be invalid in the contract, because a contract must be fair to all involved parties and not violate basic rights like freedom of speech.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Why would we ask the courts to decide what is large? What if I don't like their answer? Surely this is a legislative question.
  - ziddoap 6y ago
    My post was meant to be more rhetorical in nature, to demonstrate that overzealous censorship is not an issue which can be solved by simply stating "force all non-illegal content to be/remain published". It's easy to hand-wave it to the courts, but there are many issues with that approach as well (e.g. non-technically competent people making decisions about technology, government not immune to corruption nor censorship, courts are slow by nature). Your answer also conveniently side-steps the nitty-gritty implementation issues. How does a platform deal with spam posts if they are unable to delete content that is legal? If you don't like a website, simply post a few thousand Viagra advertisements to their front page for a few weeks and they either have to advertise Viagra or shutdown. Speaking of advertising, why bother pay for ad-space on a website like Reddit, when I can just spam my product on every subreddit over and over again and they have no choice but to keep it up? Will these rules also be applicable to other forms of media which also have a viewership above the arbitrary "large" line? Newspaper, books, TV? If not, why not? These are just a few off-the-cuff issues that come to mind. I'm sure people smarter than me who take some time to seriously consider this approach will be able to find hundreds of such examples of why "forced to publish all non-illegal content" sounds great but is simply not a feasible solution to the problem. As an aside, I find it odd that the answer to censorship by private companies is to offload everything to the largest centralized system with the longest history of censorship: governments.
spenczar5 6y ago
Why should they be forced to distribute it? That's a pretty extreme stance, and you haven't provided a reason.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  They should have to choose between neutral publishing and liability on their networks. If they want to censor then section 230 of the communications decency act should be repealed and let them take ownership of their decisions. As it stands now they get zero liability for speech they can clearly police. I see hate groups in Facebook that Facebook doesn't close if reported. Let them own it
  - spenczar5 6y ago
    Right, I get that that’s a position you can take, I just don’t see why.
    - LegitShady 6y ago
      To protect society from technocrat control of speech.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  They're not forced to distribute it any more than they're forced to distribute content they do agree with. In both cases, they're already providing the service to distribute it; they're simply leaving it alone and not acting at all. Incidentally that's the best way for them to retain their Section 230 protection -- neutrality.

by kanox 6y ago

bumbledraven 6y ago

It’s hard to make a free speech site whose content guidelines follow the First Amendment, because the credit card networks will ban you. Gab, for example, can only accept checks and crypto.

Natanael_L 6y ago
Even they doesn't actually strive to allow everything that's legal.
numpad0 6y ago
ban credit card network ban you by law. if it can't be done(yes it can't be done) so is forcing platforms be fair(that can't happen as well).

ziddoap 6y ago

I'm not on Googles side here, but... As nice as your sentiment is, there are plenty of real problems which have to be addressed. Who defines, and what are the definitions of "Large" and "General Purpose" in this context? Am I allowed to moderate content as fits with my ToS at X number of users, but at X+1 users I become forced to publish all content which is "not otherwise illegal"? In regards to what is "not otherwise illegal", which laws from which country apply? How does one combat things such as excessive spam? If I am forced to allow any content which is "otherwise not illegal", and my service becomes literally unusable because of someone posting 10,000 cat pictures per second (cats aren't illegal, I'm forced to distribute the cats), what is my recourse? Am I still allowed to rate limit? Because that, boiled down, is censoring a users ability to post "otherwise not illegal" content.

benibela 6y ago
The courts decide what is a large platform. And they decide what is "not illegal" In Germany, there were actually cases where courts have ruled that facebook is not allowed to delete non illegal posts: https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Oberlandesgericht-Meinungsfreiheit-sticht-Hausrecht-bei-Facebook-4156833.html https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Oberlandesgericht-Me... One big part of the argument of the judges was based on contracts. When a user makes a facebook account, it creates a contract between the user and facebook. The user agrees to share their data for ads and stuff, and facebook agrees to publish their posts. Thus they have to do that, they cannot just decide to not publish some posts, that would be a contract violation. Just like when you order a pizza with 10 toppings, the pizza service cannot deliver a pizza with 8 toppings and still expect you to pay the full price And as second part, the court has ruled that a clause "we choose which posts to publish" would be invalid in the contract, because a contract must be fair to all involved parties and not violate basic rights like freedom of speech.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Why would we ask the courts to decide what is large? What if I don't like their answer? Surely this is a legislative question.
- ziddoap 6y ago
  My post was meant to be more rhetorical in nature, to demonstrate that overzealous censorship is not an issue which can be solved by simply stating "force all non-illegal content to be/remain published". It's easy to hand-wave it to the courts, but there are many issues with that approach as well (e.g. non-technically competent people making decisions about technology, government not immune to corruption nor censorship, courts are slow by nature). Your answer also conveniently side-steps the nitty-gritty implementation issues. How does a platform deal with spam posts if they are unable to delete content that is legal? If you don't like a website, simply post a few thousand Viagra advertisements to their front page for a few weeks and they either have to advertise Viagra or shutdown. Speaking of advertising, why bother pay for ad-space on a website like Reddit, when I can just spam my product on every subreddit over and over again and they have no choice but to keep it up? Will these rules also be applicable to other forms of media which also have a viewership above the arbitrary "large" line? Newspaper, books, TV? If not, why not? These are just a few off-the-cuff issues that come to mind. I'm sure people smarter than me who take some time to seriously consider this approach will be able to find hundreds of such examples of why "forced to publish all non-illegal content" sounds great but is simply not a feasible solution to the problem. As an aside, I find it odd that the answer to censorship by private companies is to offload everything to the largest centralized system with the longest history of censorship: governments.

spenczar5 6y ago

Why should they be forced to distribute it? That's a pretty extreme stance, and you haven't provided a reason.

LegitShady 6y ago
They should have to choose between neutral publishing and liability on their networks. If they want to censor then section 230 of the communications decency act should be repealed and let them take ownership of their decisions. As it stands now they get zero liability for speech they can clearly police. I see hate groups in Facebook that Facebook doesn't close if reported. Let them own it
- spenczar5 6y ago
  Right, I get that that’s a position you can take, I just don’t see why.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    To protect society from technocrat control of speech.
RonanTheGrey 6y ago
They're not forced to distribute it any more than they're forced to distribute content they do agree with. In both cases, they're already providing the service to distribute it; they're simply leaving it alone and not acting at all. Incidentally that's the best way for them to retain their Section 230 protection -- neutrality.