4 ms·

The 1996 Law [Section 230] That Ruined the Internet

3 points by jc_811 6y ago

jc_811 6y ago
The author is tying section 230 to the rise of monopolies on the internet since it allowed them to achieve scale much more easily. I think we are in dire need of some sort of change regarding the internet landscape, although to be totally frank I’m not sure what it could be. Does anyone have any ideas on how we could cherish free speech, while ensuring competition stifling monopolies are not the norm?
- core-questions 6y ago
  It's well past time for an Internet Bill of Rights that re-implements the vision of freedoms given to us by the Founding Fathers and later architects of the Constitution, and applies it in a way that is contextually aware of the current lay of the land. Anyone who has actually spent time online understands that private companies control all of the spaces that are akin to the "public square". Sure, you can start your own site, but by doing so you're effectively shutting yourself out from where the vast majority of people are spending their time. We cannot cede control of all dialogue to a bunch of American corporations who care far more about their own bottom line than they do about freedom or personal rights.
Cyder 6y ago
The author mistakenly thinks that letting/making Google or Facebook censor their users (more than they already do) would prevent a monopoly and reduce monopoly advantage. How does giving monopolies more power reduce their power? It doesn't.
- core-questions 6y ago
  The author is writing in The Atlantic, a notably left-leaning publication; does it surprise you for a second that they want more censorship? In the present order, the left is advocating for censorship because they believe that it will only be used against the right. Of course, the shoe has been on the other foot in the past. The only correct answer is a principled answer: censorship is wrong regardless of political affiliation. Part of this, of course, needs to be an understanding that "free speech" was always intended to be speech first and foremost, i.e. political speech, scientific dialgues, etc. with a focus on defending things which are iconoclastic. Obscenity is not the same thing at all, there's no need for confusion here, we can continue to ban people posting things that all good people believe should be illegal (i.e. the exploitation of children). It's also totally reasonable for people to want to carve off curated spaces; this is why the law needs to be nuanced enough to differentiate between platforms, subforums, communities, publishers, bloggers, etc. rather than hoping to lump everything together with blanket statements that fail to accomplish the real goal of free speech.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    The left is divided into establishment lefties, high percentage neoliberal, and non establishment ones, high percentage New Deal types. Another way to view it is markets vs. mixed model, markets where they believe they work and socialism where they believe that makes sense. Health care is an easy to see fault line. Establishment types are perfectly happy to see rhetoric critical of them censored right along with the right.

3 points by jc_811 6y ago

The author is tying section 230 to the rise of monopolies on the internet since it allowed them to achieve scale much more easily. I think we are in dire need of some sort of change regarding the internet landscape, although to be totally frank I’m not sure what it could be. Does anyone have any ideas on how we could cherish free speech, while ensuring competition stifling monopolies are not the norm?

core-questions 6y ago
It's well past time for an Internet Bill of Rights that re-implements the vision of freedoms given to us by the Founding Fathers and later architects of the Constitution, and applies it in a way that is contextually aware of the current lay of the land. Anyone who has actually spent time online understands that private companies control all of the spaces that are akin to the "public square". Sure, you can start your own site, but by doing so you're effectively shutting yourself out from where the vast majority of people are spending their time. We cannot cede control of all dialogue to a bunch of American corporations who care far more about their own bottom line than they do about freedom or personal rights.

Cyder 6y ago

The author mistakenly thinks that letting/making Google or Facebook censor their users (more than they already do) would prevent a monopoly and reduce monopoly advantage. How does giving monopolies more power reduce their power? It doesn't.

core-questions 6y ago
The author is writing in The Atlantic, a notably left-leaning publication; does it surprise you for a second that they want more censorship? In the present order, the left is advocating for censorship because they believe that it will only be used against the right. Of course, the shoe has been on the other foot in the past. The only correct answer is a principled answer: censorship is wrong regardless of political affiliation. Part of this, of course, needs to be an understanding that "free speech" was always intended to be speech first and foremost, i.e. political speech, scientific dialgues, etc. with a focus on defending things which are iconoclastic. Obscenity is not the same thing at all, there's no need for confusion here, we can continue to ban people posting things that all good people believe should be illegal (i.e. the exploitation of children). It's also totally reasonable for people to want to carve off curated spaces; this is why the law needs to be nuanced enough to differentiate between platforms, subforums, communities, publishers, bloggers, etc. rather than hoping to lump everything together with blanket statements that fail to accomplish the real goal of free speech.
- ddingus 6y ago
  The left is divided into establishment lefties, high percentage neoliberal, and non establishment ones, high percentage New Deal types. Another way to view it is markets vs. mixed model, markets where they believe they work and socialism where they believe that makes sense. Health care is an easy to see fault line. Establishment types are perfectly happy to see rhetoric critical of them censored right along with the right.