5 ms·

I understand that. Not disputing that. But that is an entirely different (as in not the same) thing than being the source of the violent/illegal threats or inci

I understand that. Not disputing that. But that is an entirely different (as in not the same) thing than being the source of the violent/illegal threats or incitement. The comment I was responding to was misleading IMHO ("the speech Parler is being kicked off AWS for"). As you point out, they aren't being kicked off "for speech" they are being kicked off for insufficient moderation of someone else's speech, which speaks to the difficulties of being an at-scale content provider.

peteretep 6y ago
Content moderation at scale is hard and expensive, but so is regulating emissions from industrial processes, and we don’t (or at least shouldn’t?) throw up our hands and say “let’s not bother then”. Again though, we’re getting lost in the weeds here. Parler’s entire selling point, and the only reason it had any users or any product, was the implicit promise that “we won’t moderate content”.
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
The difference is that Parler considers their lack of moderation a feature and even advertises it.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Yeah, when you advertise your platform as "Twitter but without the strict moderation", and then people find a ton of calls for violence on your platform, it's a little hard to argue you were actually trying to moderate said content. Maybe they were, it'll be tricky to show it for certain from our vantage point, but it certainly doesn't help their case that the whole point of platform that they weren't going to moderate said content.
- coffeefirst 6y ago
  And wink, wink, nudge, nudge because everyone knows what they mean by that. You can’t build a platform for organizing murders, knowingly allow users to organize murders on your site, and then claim it’s not your fault because technically you aren’t responsible for UGC. Surely there’s a line where it’s just a veneer of an excuse.
  - gwright 6y ago
    Honest question(s): Is it possible to build a platform with user generated content that is agnostic regarding the content in the same way that a traditional telco is agnostic about the content of phone calls (or SMS)? Is the difference that the messages are private rather than public? We don't expect telco's to create filters or to independently moderate or to block the content of phone calls or SMS messages and basically legal mechanisms must be used to trigger any action against a subscriber. I realize that this is largely due to the legal framework of a "common carrier". What I'm asking is, what would a "common carrier" look like for platform that had user generated content? Perhaps it isn't possible?
    - peteretep 6y ago
      What you're describing is an end-to-end encrypted messaging app.
      - gwright 6y ago
        Well no, what I was trying to imagine was something beyond messaging that included public, user-generated content but analogous to common-carrier status. But perhaps there simply is an inherent problem with being a platform for user-generated content and that it requires somewhat robust moderation to avoid being cancelled, sued, or arrested.
        Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
        > Well no, what I was trying to imagine was something beyond messaging that included public, user-generated content but analogous to common-carrier status. I think you need to define was "common-carrier" means. As far as I'm concerned, once a message is deemed to be intended to be public, "common carrier" goes away for the service that is going to be broadcasting that message to others. The copper/fiber/etc. lines between me and Twitter are still a common carrier, because even though my Tweet is going to be public, the individual TCP packets going to Twitter are still intended to be private.

peteretep 6y ago

Content moderation at scale is hard and expensive, but so is regulating emissions from industrial processes, and we don’t (or at least shouldn’t?) throw up our hands and say “let’s not bother then”. Again though, we’re getting lost in the weeds here. Parler’s entire selling point, and the only reason it had any users or any product, was the implicit promise that “we won’t moderate content”.

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago

The difference is that Parler considers their lack of moderation a feature and even advertises it.

ehsankia 6y ago
Yeah, when you advertise your platform as "Twitter but without the strict moderation", and then people find a ton of calls for violence on your platform, it's a little hard to argue you were actually trying to moderate said content. Maybe they were, it'll be tricky to show it for certain from our vantage point, but it certainly doesn't help their case that the whole point of platform that they weren't going to moderate said content.
coffeefirst 6y ago
And wink, wink, nudge, nudge because everyone knows what they mean by that. You can’t build a platform for organizing murders, knowingly allow users to organize murders on your site, and then claim it’s not your fault because technically you aren’t responsible for UGC. Surely there’s a line where it’s just a veneer of an excuse.
- gwright 6y ago
  Honest question(s): Is it possible to build a platform with user generated content that is agnostic regarding the content in the same way that a traditional telco is agnostic about the content of phone calls (or SMS)? Is the difference that the messages are private rather than public? We don't expect telco's to create filters or to independently moderate or to block the content of phone calls or SMS messages and basically legal mechanisms must be used to trigger any action against a subscriber. I realize that this is largely due to the legal framework of a "common carrier". What I'm asking is, what would a "common carrier" look like for platform that had user generated content? Perhaps it isn't possible?
  - peteretep 6y ago
    What you're describing is an end-to-end encrypted messaging app.
    - gwright 6y ago
      Well no, what I was trying to imagine was something beyond messaging that included public, user-generated content but analogous to common-carrier status. But perhaps there simply is an inherent problem with being a platform for user-generated content and that it requires somewhat robust moderation to avoid being cancelled, sued, or arrested.
      - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
        > Well no, what I was trying to imagine was something beyond messaging that included public, user-generated content but analogous to common-carrier status. I think you need to define was "common-carrier" means. As far as I'm concerned, once a message is deemed to be intended to be public, "common carrier" goes away for the service that is going to be broadcasting that message to others. The copper/fiber/etc. lines between me and Twitter are still a common carrier, because even though my Tweet is going to be public, the individual TCP packets going to Twitter are still intended to be private.