3 ms·

In my view, understanding all sides of the following question is central for anyone who wants to understand the implications of modern social technology. > To

by xpe 6y ago

In my view, understanding all sides of the following question is central for anyone who wants to understand the implications of modern social technology. > To cut a politician and affiliated organizations off from payment processors, Web-hosting services, and e-mail providers is to halt them at the level of infrastructure. It is a different game than the moderation of user-generated content, and raises different questions. Advocates for net neutrality have long argued that Internet service providers should not determine who their users are, within the bounds of legality; in this view, Internet service providers are akin to public utilities. For Trump, arguably, it’s as though the electric company has permanently turned off the lights.

kiwidrew 6y ago
Yeah, to me this is the key point in the whole debate: to what extent are the private internet "giants" providing infrastructure and/or operating as a public utility? I was concerned when Twitter and Facebook and other social media platforms started the mass deactivation of accounts they no longer wanted to host, but in the end I don't think these actions are wholly unjustified: nobody should be entitled to a megaphone for their speech. And as many have said, "if you don't like it go start your own social network" is an acceptable response. The real issue is at the next layer down, the service providers which collectively operate what we know as "the Internet": what if you can't go start your own social network because none of the server hosts or domain registrars will provide their services to you? But do we really want to mandate (and regulate) that hosting providers must provide service to anyone that asks, no matter how undesirable or troublesome they might be? Should there be a "provider of last resort" for those that are unable to find a willing host? I'd like to see more discussion and debate on this topic.
- diggernet 6y ago
  Undesirable or troublesome to whom? If you say something on the Internet that angers a mob, you are no more directly harming your ISP than you are directly harming your electric company. Why should one of them be able to cut you off on a whim, and the other cannot? If it is because one of them is more indirectly harmed, such as by the mob attacking them, then why do tolerate such attacks on one but not the other? Fundamentally, I think that a service provider, of any service, should be expected to provide their service to anyone willing to pay for it, as long as that customer does not actively and directly harm the service provider. Mob actions against the provider are a separate matter, and should be opposed, whether they are calling for all ISPs to disconnect the offender or for all grocers to stop selling them food. Further, I think that even at the platform level, permabans should not be allowed (unless perhaps with a court judgement after multiple offenses). Temporary suspension for TOS violations? Sure! But there should always be a clear and accessible process for appeal, and for the offender to redeem themselves. Considering what a large and important part of society communication platforms have become, a lifetime ban without trial or recourse is unacceptable and unconscionable.
d1zzy 6y ago
So who's going to pay the money to keep the lights on for Trump? At the end of the day these companies are businesses that cater to their customers. For adtech that's advertisers. The reason a lot of non-illegal content is removed from platforms is because it can't be monetized. When someone incites violence no advertiser wants to have their ads show up along side their clip, or even simply on the platform that hosts such content. So the platforms will listen to their customers and make sure to remove such content, simple. If you want to force platforms to host content that hurts their business you should also propose how they will be compensated for the lost of revenue from doing so, especially if large advertisers start pulling out from the entire platform. Are you going to use tax money to compensate these businesses so that they can't remove that content?

by xpe 6y ago

kiwidrew 6y ago

Yeah, to me this is the key point in the whole debate: to what extent are the private internet "giants" providing infrastructure and/or operating as a public utility? I was concerned when Twitter and Facebook and other social media platforms started the mass deactivation of accounts they no longer wanted to host, but in the end I don't think these actions are wholly unjustified: nobody should be entitled to a megaphone for their speech. And as many have said, "if you don't like it go start your own social network" is an acceptable response. The real issue is at the next layer down, the service providers which collectively operate what we know as "the Internet": what if you can't go start your own social network because none of the server hosts or domain registrars will provide their services to you? But do we really want to mandate (and regulate) that hosting providers must provide service to anyone that asks, no matter how undesirable or troublesome they might be? Should there be a "provider of last resort" for those that are unable to find a willing host? I'd like to see more discussion and debate on this topic.

diggernet 6y ago
Undesirable or troublesome to whom? If you say something on the Internet that angers a mob, you are no more directly harming your ISP than you are directly harming your electric company. Why should one of them be able to cut you off on a whim, and the other cannot? If it is because one of them is more indirectly harmed, such as by the mob attacking them, then why do tolerate such attacks on one but not the other? Fundamentally, I think that a service provider, of any service, should be expected to provide their service to anyone willing to pay for it, as long as that customer does not actively and directly harm the service provider. Mob actions against the provider are a separate matter, and should be opposed, whether they are calling for all ISPs to disconnect the offender or for all grocers to stop selling them food. Further, I think that even at the platform level, permabans should not be allowed (unless perhaps with a court judgement after multiple offenses). Temporary suspension for TOS violations? Sure! But there should always be a clear and accessible process for appeal, and for the offender to redeem themselves. Considering what a large and important part of society communication platforms have become, a lifetime ban without trial or recourse is unacceptable and unconscionable.

d1zzy 6y ago

So who's going to pay the money to keep the lights on for Trump? At the end of the day these companies are businesses that cater to their customers. For adtech that's advertisers. The reason a lot of non-illegal content is removed from platforms is because it can't be monetized. When someone incites violence no advertiser wants to have their ads show up along side their clip, or even simply on the platform that hosts such content. So the platforms will listen to their customers and make sure to remove such content, simple. If you want to force platforms to host content that hurts their business you should also propose how they will be compensated for the lost of revenue from doing so, especially if large advertisers start pulling out from the entire platform. Are you going to use tax money to compensate these businesses so that they can't remove that content?