4 ms·

>> is it also OK for AT&T on its phone network? For Google on Gmail Twitter is a closed-system and not a utility, and I guess that makes all the difference.

pacamara619 6y ago
As far as I can tell Internet is not a utility either in the U.S. so what's your point?
- geofft 6y ago
  Correct. US progressives and the major tech services recently argued that it should be treated as a utility, because of precisely this sort of problem, and they were opposed by US conservatives and ISPs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#United_States I'd say it's ironic, but it isn't really if you look at what the progressive and conservative movements and "big tech" have really been advocating for (which is off-topic for this site).
Wohlf 6y ago
Phones were not always considered a utility, it's a definition that can be changed by Congress and in some ways the FCC at any time.
jimmydorry 6y ago
That is also a matter for interpretation, I believe. This cuts to the heart of the raging platform vs publisher debate (section 230). From my understanding, the current status quo is: 1. A platform can not moderate its content beyond removing illegal content that is brought to their attention; 2. A publisher can moderate and selectively cull what ever user content they like, but is held liable for any infringing content that breaks its ToS or the law. This is a matter I strongly believe requires an update to relevant legislation and a clear / strong precedent that can be pointed to. It feels like social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) is trying to be both a platform and publisher when it suits them. EDIT: Made the language a bit more neutral and closer alined to the current than the "should be". A child reply linked an article that is worth reading [1], however take it with a grain of salt, seeing as it's more opinion and interpretation of intent than a reading on application of the law as it is written. This issue has been simmering away long before 2016. It's only started to come to the foreground as the social media giants started moving closer to "publisher" than "platform". It would have been unthinkable to see Twitter, Facebook and Youtube "fact checking" and adding content below posts ten years ago. I see this less as a partisan issue and more of a civil rights issue. I don't want to imagine a future where we have untouchable arbitrers of truth. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...
- damnyou 6y ago
  This is not what Section 230 says and it is never what Section 230 has said. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...
  - jimmydorry 6y ago
    You're going to need to be a bit more specific as your article offers a very similar interpretaiton of platform vs publisher (without using those terms), to what I presented. The only thing of note I see in your article is a "deep dive" into figuring out the "original intention" behind the law. I believe modern application of a law should matter more than what the writers of the law were potentially thinking at the time. >Then we get to these early internet services like CompuServe and Prodigy in the early ‘90s. CompuServe is like the Wild West. It basically says, “We’re not going to moderate anything.” Prodigy says, “We’re going to have moderators, and we’re going to prohibit bad stuff from being online.” They’re both, not surprisingly, sued for defamation based on third-party content. >CompuServe’s lawsuit is dismissed because what the judge says is, yeah, CompuServe is the electronic equivalent of a newsstand or bookstore. The court rules that Prodigy doesn’t get the same immunity because Prodigy actually did moderate content, so Prodigy is more like a newspaper’s letter to the editor page. So you get this really weird rule where these online platforms can reduce their liability by not moderating content.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > I believe modern application of a law should matter more than what the writers of the law were potentially thinking at the time. Section 230 has never been applied this way. Some people want to change it, but they haven't yet. There is no legal precedent that those people have to stand behind. You're asking the courts to change the law based on executive preference. That's dangerous for a wide variety of reasons (ex-post-facto-ness, separation of powers, etc.) In case you didn't understand the parent, section 230 was written to fix the issue that prodigy had. All section 230 does is protect people who moderate content from civil liability. That's it. The law itself doesn't distinguish platforms or publishers. It distinguishes first-party and third-party content (and gives you protection for third party content, even if you publish first party content and moderate the third party content). That's all. Nothing about platforms or publishers, and nothing about categorizing a company as one or the other. Only protection around certain kinds of content.

pacamara619 6y ago

As far as I can tell Internet is not a utility either in the U.S. so what's your point?

geofft 6y ago
Correct. US progressives and the major tech services recently argued that it should be treated as a utility, because of precisely this sort of problem, and they were opposed by US conservatives and ISPs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#United_States I'd say it's ironic, but it isn't really if you look at what the progressive and conservative movements and "big tech" have really been advocating for (which is off-topic for this site).

Wohlf 6y ago

Phones were not always considered a utility, it's a definition that can be changed by Congress and in some ways the FCC at any time.

jimmydorry 6y ago

That is also a matter for interpretation, I believe. This cuts to the heart of the raging platform vs publisher debate (section 230). From my understanding, the current status quo is: 1. A platform can not moderate its content beyond removing illegal content that is brought to their attention; 2. A publisher can moderate and selectively cull what ever user content they like, but is held liable for any infringing content that breaks its ToS or the law. This is a matter I strongly believe requires an update to relevant legislation and a clear / strong precedent that can be pointed to. It feels like social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) is trying to be both a platform and publisher when it suits them. EDIT: Made the language a bit more neutral and closer alined to the current than the "should be". A child reply linked an article that is worth reading [1], however take it with a grain of salt, seeing as it's more opinion and interpretation of intent than a reading on application of the law as it is written. This issue has been simmering away long before 2016. It's only started to come to the foreground as the social media giants started moving closer to "publisher" than "platform". It would have been unthinkable to see Twitter, Facebook and Youtube "fact checking" and adding content below posts ten years ago. I see this less as a partisan issue and more of a civil rights issue. I don't want to imagine a future where we have untouchable arbitrers of truth. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...

damnyou 6y ago
This is not what Section 230 says and it is never what Section 230 has said. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...
- jimmydorry 6y ago
  You're going to need to be a bit more specific as your article offers a very similar interpretaiton of platform vs publisher (without using those terms), to what I presented. The only thing of note I see in your article is a "deep dive" into figuring out the "original intention" behind the law. I believe modern application of a law should matter more than what the writers of the law were potentially thinking at the time. >Then we get to these early internet services like CompuServe and Prodigy in the early ‘90s. CompuServe is like the Wild West. It basically says, “We’re not going to moderate anything.” Prodigy says, “We’re going to have moderators, and we’re going to prohibit bad stuff from being online.” They’re both, not surprisingly, sued for defamation based on third-party content. >CompuServe’s lawsuit is dismissed because what the judge says is, yeah, CompuServe is the electronic equivalent of a newsstand or bookstore. The court rules that Prodigy doesn’t get the same immunity because Prodigy actually did moderate content, so Prodigy is more like a newspaper’s letter to the editor page. So you get this really weird rule where these online platforms can reduce their liability by not moderating content.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > I believe modern application of a law should matter more than what the writers of the law were potentially thinking at the time. Section 230 has never been applied this way. Some people want to change it, but they haven't yet. There is no legal precedent that those people have to stand behind. You're asking the courts to change the law based on executive preference. That's dangerous for a wide variety of reasons (ex-post-facto-ness, separation of powers, etc.) In case you didn't understand the parent, section 230 was written to fix the issue that prodigy had. All section 230 does is protect people who moderate content from civil liability. That's it. The law itself doesn't distinguish platforms or publishers. It distinguishes first-party and third-party content (and gives you protection for third party content, even if you publish first party content and moderate the third party content). That's all. Nothing about platforms or publishers, and nothing about categorizing a company as one or the other. Only protection around certain kinds of content.