5 ms·

not really. it's just saying "this is mine, it's not public property or a public service, and thus i get to manage it how i want." I think MOST people would agr

not really. it's just saying "this is mine, it's not public property or a public service, and thus i get to manage it how i want." I think MOST people would agree that that's a reasonable approach. just because a lot of people rely on the google play store doesn't mean it's a public service in the legal sense. It's a very private piece of software that is NOT open source and is very obviously owned and managed by a single entity. just like you get to choose who you let in your house. they get to choose how their software is used. side note: monopoly is a separate issue.

Proven 6y ago
> side note: monopoly is a separate issue. I upvoted you but regarding this last sentence - monopoly shouldn't be a separate issue. The same private property rights should apply.
nybble41 6y ago
> just like you get to choose who you let in your house. they get to choose how their software is used. The first instance is property rights. The second is copyright, a privilege granted by the government at the expense of others' property rights. When a private party leverages copyright to conduct censorship it's ultimately the government that is responsible for violating the victim's freedom of speech. Google certainly has the right to grant or deny access to their services as they please, but that is not the same as having a natural right to decide how the software they develop is used after it has already been released to the public.
LegitShady 6y ago
I agree with you, but the flip side is that they are not liable for the speech on their property due to an exception in section 230 of the communications decency act. If they have shown the ability to control speech on their platforms section 230 should be repealed and Google etc should be responsible for the content on their property like any other publisher.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Section 230 exists because it is operationally impractical for websites to affirmative approve of all, most, or even a significant portion or content before it is published by users. If there's anything that is an indisputable fact, it's that no high-volume platform with user content can proactively police their platform 100%. I think that's a silly rationale to say that they should be prohibited from manually policing content that is brought to their attention afterwards.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    I never said they should be prohibited from policing content merely that if they are capable of policing content they should be held liable for content on their platform like every other publisher. There is no reason to give these censorious companies extra legal protections no other publisher has if they are censoring society. They have been protected by a regulation that is now causing intense centralizing of power in the hand of a few technocrats and it is actively harmful to the rest of society to so empower them over everyone else. It is operationally impractical that society should be subject to Google's whims but Google not liable for Google's network content.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      > There is no reason to give these censorious companies extra legal protections no other publisher has if they are censoring society. Yes, there is a very good reason. Traditional publishers review 100% of content before they affirmatively publish it. User content on most websites are published by automation, and are not reviewed by humans, like this comment.
      - LegitShady 6y ago
        >User content on most websites are published by automation, and are not reviewed by humans, like this comment. So what? They choose to publish it. They can choose not to. Their own internal business practices don't require society to give them loopholes with which they get out of all liability and abuse the rights of others. It's a good reason to the publisher, its not a good reason for the rest of society.
Someone 6y ago
“just because a lot of people rely on the google play store doesn't mean it's a public service in the legal sense” I think that’s precisely what’s starting to be discussed now at national levels, with investigations into Apple, Facebook and Google in the EU and the USA. In many countries, utilities are commercial entities, but they can’t refuse to serve customers because of what they say. I can see a future where we think the same of the big players on the web: commercial, but still public utilities. Problem of course is that many countries also fear a completely open internet. Providers already have to filter pornography, hate speech, etc. So, would we end up with commercial entities that cannot filter the content published on their platform to suit their norms, but must filter it to suit the norms of the government? If so, would that apply to all sites, including, say, Hacker News, or pro- or anti-abortus sites, or just to large ones? If so, what’s ‘large’?

Proven 6y ago

> side note: monopoly is a separate issue. I upvoted you but regarding this last sentence - monopoly shouldn't be a separate issue. The same private property rights should apply.

nybble41 6y ago

> just like you get to choose who you let in your house. they get to choose how their software is used. The first instance is property rights. The second is copyright, a privilege granted by the government at the expense of others' property rights. When a private party leverages copyright to conduct censorship it's ultimately the government that is responsible for violating the victim's freedom of speech. Google certainly has the right to grant or deny access to their services as they please, but that is not the same as having a natural right to decide how the software they develop is used after it has already been released to the public.

LegitShady 6y ago

I agree with you, but the flip side is that they are not liable for the speech on their property due to an exception in section 230 of the communications decency act. If they have shown the ability to control speech on their platforms section 230 should be repealed and Google etc should be responsible for the content on their property like any other publisher.

kube-system 6y ago
Section 230 exists because it is operationally impractical for websites to affirmative approve of all, most, or even a significant portion or content before it is published by users. If there's anything that is an indisputable fact, it's that no high-volume platform with user content can proactively police their platform 100%. I think that's a silly rationale to say that they should be prohibited from manually policing content that is brought to their attention afterwards.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  I never said they should be prohibited from policing content merely that if they are capable of policing content they should be held liable for content on their platform like every other publisher. There is no reason to give these censorious companies extra legal protections no other publisher has if they are censoring society. They have been protected by a regulation that is now causing intense centralizing of power in the hand of a few technocrats and it is actively harmful to the rest of society to so empower them over everyone else. It is operationally impractical that society should be subject to Google's whims but Google not liable for Google's network content.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    > There is no reason to give these censorious companies extra legal protections no other publisher has if they are censoring society. Yes, there is a very good reason. Traditional publishers review 100% of content before they affirmatively publish it. User content on most websites are published by automation, and are not reviewed by humans, like this comment.
    - LegitShady 6y ago
      >User content on most websites are published by automation, and are not reviewed by humans, like this comment. So what? They choose to publish it. They can choose not to. Their own internal business practices don't require society to give them loopholes with which they get out of all liability and abuse the rights of others. It's a good reason to the publisher, its not a good reason for the rest of society.

Someone 6y ago

“just because a lot of people rely on the google play store doesn't mean it's a public service in the legal sense” I think that’s precisely what’s starting to be discussed now at national levels, with investigations into Apple, Facebook and Google in the EU and the USA. In many countries, utilities are commercial entities, but they can’t refuse to serve customers because of what they say. I can see a future where we think the same of the big players on the web: commercial, but still public utilities. Problem of course is that many countries also fear a completely open internet. Providers already have to filter pornography, hate speech, etc. So, would we end up with commercial entities that cannot filter the content published on their platform to suit their norms, but must filter it to suit the norms of the government? If so, would that apply to all sites, including, say, Hacker News, or pro- or anti-abortus sites, or just to large ones? If so, what’s ‘large’?