5 ms·

Out of curiosity, do you believe the NYTimes should have the right to censor its own comments section? What about censorship in its op-ed section (if the Times

by ghayes 6y ago

Out of curiosity, do you believe the NYTimes should have the right to censor its own comments section? What about censorship in its op-ed section (if the Times decides to not, let’s say, publish your article in the Op-Ed). Facebook is not a public utility, so restricting how Facebook can moderate is, in fact, censorship (and potentially a violation of the prior restraint doctrine). Safe harbor is an odd work-around to this fundamental concern, in my opinion (that is, forcing a company to censor or not and otherwise holding it criminally liable for the all content, which could technically be posted maliciously by an aggrieved anonymous user).

imgabe 6y ago
If, for example, the NY Times hosted their website on AWS, do you think Amazon should be able to shut off their servers if the NY Times publishes something Amazon doesn't like? This where we have to ask whether we want Facebook to be a publisher or a platform. Is Facebook responsible for Steve Bannon's speech, or is Steve Bannon?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jwalgenbach 6y ago
  Actually, yes. This is entirely reasonable. Hosting companies decided they didn't want 4chan or Stormfront or other hives of white supremacy and that's okay. Publishers are allowed to not publish a book. Fox News and CNN get to decide what guests are on their talking heads shows. Facebook is not a public utility. It is not a dot gov. They can allow whatever content they want so long as it doesn't break the law.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    If I run my own ecommerce shop on AWS, Amazon should just be able to shut it down and force me to sell through Amazon instead? If I run a service on an EC2 instance that uses Auth.0, they can shut it off until I agree to use Cognito?
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      Sure, if their terms of service allow it. Conversely, should every user of a platform get to dictate terms? No. In both cases you and a provider enter into a mutually agreeable relation under some terms of service. And you both can terminate that relationship up to terms of service.
      - imgabe 6y ago
        No, actually, I don't think Terms of Service get to override antitrust laws. We recognize there's a value in having a diverse set of options that compete with each other when it comes to business. We also recognize there's a value in having a diverse set of opinions presented so people can decide on them based on their merits and the best ones can rise to the top. This does mean that sometimes bad opinions are presented, just like sometimes companies that turn out to be bad ideas get started. The solution is not place all authority in the hands of some central dictator who picks the winners and losers beforehand. There is no person or organization capable of reliably filling that role.
        Groxx 6y ago
        >I don't think Terms of Service get to override antitrust laws. I suspect most people agree on this fwiw. But it'd only apply when antitrust laws are invoked successfully - the vast majority of companies and situations do not fall into that category, as viable alternatives exist. E.g. Amazon is most certainly not the only / impossibly-dominant storefront or CDN.
    - Groxx 6y ago
      ... yes? Amazon has no obligation to do business with you.
dropit_sphere 6y ago
>Out of curiosity, do you believe the NYTimes should have the right to censor its own comments section? No, no I don't, not as a "comments section," anyway. To an extent, NYT is riding on users' past experiences with uncensored comment sections in other contexts. It's the violation of expectations (both of commenters and readers) that grinds. Were NYT to put up a disclaimer to the effect that "This is our damn site and we'll delete whatever we want," I think they'd actually get some respect for it. The ire comes because they want it both ways---they want the engagement metrics, without the freedom that engagement requires. What's needed is a rule of law, such that users can predict beforehand what the outcome of an action will be.
LudwigNagasena 6y ago
Do you think private contractors that provide public utilities should be able to decide who gets to use electricity? Do you think private companies should be able to provide weapons to the enemy in times of war? Societies provide rules, regulations and protections around private property to harmonize private and public interests. Facebook is not NYTimes and there is no reason to treat them the same way. Laws and regulations should be pragmatic.

by ghayes 6y ago

imgabe 6y ago

If, for example, the NY Times hosted their website on AWS, do you think Amazon should be able to shut off their servers if the NY Times publishes something Amazon doesn't like? This where we have to ask whether we want Facebook to be a publisher or a platform. Is Facebook responsible for Steve Bannon's speech, or is Steve Bannon?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jwalgenbach 6y ago
Actually, yes. This is entirely reasonable. Hosting companies decided they didn't want 4chan or Stormfront or other hives of white supremacy and that's okay. Publishers are allowed to not publish a book. Fox News and CNN get to decide what guests are on their talking heads shows. Facebook is not a public utility. It is not a dot gov. They can allow whatever content they want so long as it doesn't break the law.
- imgabe 6y ago
  If I run my own ecommerce shop on AWS, Amazon should just be able to shut it down and force me to sell through Amazon instead? If I run a service on an EC2 instance that uses Auth.0, they can shut it off until I agree to use Cognito?
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    Sure, if their terms of service allow it. Conversely, should every user of a platform get to dictate terms? No. In both cases you and a provider enter into a mutually agreeable relation under some terms of service. And you both can terminate that relationship up to terms of service.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      No, actually, I don't think Terms of Service get to override antitrust laws. We recognize there's a value in having a diverse set of options that compete with each other when it comes to business. We also recognize there's a value in having a diverse set of opinions presented so people can decide on them based on their merits and the best ones can rise to the top. This does mean that sometimes bad opinions are presented, just like sometimes companies that turn out to be bad ideas get started. The solution is not place all authority in the hands of some central dictator who picks the winners and losers beforehand. There is no person or organization capable of reliably filling that role.
      - Groxx 6y ago
        >I don't think Terms of Service get to override antitrust laws. I suspect most people agree on this fwiw. But it'd only apply when antitrust laws are invoked successfully - the vast majority of companies and situations do not fall into that category, as viable alternatives exist. E.g. Amazon is most certainly not the only / impossibly-dominant storefront or CDN.
  - Groxx 6y ago
    ... yes? Amazon has no obligation to do business with you.

dropit_sphere 6y ago

>Out of curiosity, do you believe the NYTimes should have the right to censor its own comments section? No, no I don't, not as a "comments section," anyway. To an extent, NYT is riding on users' past experiences with uncensored comment sections in other contexts. It's the violation of expectations (both of commenters and readers) that grinds. Were NYT to put up a disclaimer to the effect that "This is our damn site and we'll delete whatever we want," I think they'd actually get some respect for it. The ire comes because they want it both ways---they want the engagement metrics, without the freedom that engagement requires. What's needed is a rule of law, such that users can predict beforehand what the outcome of an action will be.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago

Do you think private contractors that provide public utilities should be able to decide who gets to use electricity? Do you think private companies should be able to provide weapons to the enemy in times of war? Societies provide rules, regulations and protections around private property to harmonize private and public interests. Facebook is not NYTimes and there is no reason to treat them the same way. Laws and regulations should be pragmatic.