7 ms·

These massive websites/broadcast SMS cannot have it both ways. They cannot seek the protections of being "critical infrastructure" of any sort, common carrier,

These massive websites/broadcast SMS cannot have it both ways. They cannot seek the protections of being "critical infrastructure" of any sort, common carrier, public forum, etc. and then, at the same time, disable user accounts for any reason just like any other private website. They have to pick one or the other. The arguments I am seeing online are folks who have chosen one or the other and are arguing from their chosen perspective. For example, I am content to see them as just another handful of private websites, no matter how large they have become. Meanwhile, the companies themselves, like Twitter, are content to bask in this ambiguity instead of clarifying what they are or intend to be. EDIT: Once the number of users has grown past a manageable threshhold where violations of rules can be detected by administrators (instead of relying on others to report them), it may cause some to wonder what are the reasons absent any legal or other compusion when a user's account is suspended. Looking at the Twitter rules, the possible reasons this account may have been suspended, e.g., copyright violations, are not obvious. What is their justifcation for suspension. Some sources, e.g., The Verge, are reporting that this Twitter account was being used to solicit statements of support from academics to be used in some litigation in India that seeks to block access Sci-Hub in that country. Apparently the Indian court denied the initial request from publishers for an immediate decision in order to allow time for the scientific community to weigh in on the issue. I hope someone is setting up another means for the scientific community to weigh in on the non-monetary value of Sci-Hub.

unityByFreedom 6y ago
> These massive websites/broadcast SMS cannot have it both ways. They cannot seek the protections of being "critical infrastructure" of any sort, common carrier, public forum, etc. and then, at the same time, disable user accounts for any reason just like any other private website. It's never been proposed that platforms like Twitter become common carriers. That designation was intended for the layer beneath them, ISPs. I agree that allowing that layer, ISPs, to effectively monopolize content via regional monopolies and ever-growing media conglomerates is problematic. Now they're implementing zero rating in broadband and that means there's a high bar for starting the next Netflix, Twitter etc. If you're not already part of that club you'll have to be super wealthy or take on huge debt from existing tech/wealth dominance just to get your foot in the door. We really need to encourage competition at the ISP level in order to allow for competition among services like Twitter.
- konjin 6y ago
  And ISPs were not common carriers until they were. It was only meant for the layer underneath them: telcos. The world changes and we should not be stuck with the technology of the 80s until the end of time.
  - takeda 6y ago
    actually they were from the start, or more accurately telcos were required to provide their lines for ISPs.
    - konjin 6y ago
      Actually isps weren't common carriers until 2015 and aren't again today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/14/the-fcc-is-expected-to-repeal-its-net-neutrality-rules-today-in-a-sweeping-act-of-deregulation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/14...
      - unityByFreedom 6y ago
        And since 2015 social media platforms have had no real competition.
        takeda 6y ago
        I used Facebook in 2006 and it already was taking over MySpace. I don't know where you got 2015 from, because how ISPs are treated has no impact on social media.
        unityByFreedom 6y ago
        2015 came from the parent comment. I'm saying the current tech platform powers got a lot stronger in the last 4 years.
      - takeda 6y ago
stjohnswarts 6y ago
I can't agree. It's their platform and they can leave up what they like. When someone starts advocating violence, treason, assassination then they can shut down that account. Also in national emergencies (like our current one with right wing extremists) it is also justified. I don't want section 230 undone, it will do far more damage than good.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Who did Sci-Hub advocate for assassination? What violence did they try to incite? What treasonous act did they commit? This conversation is about twitter nuking Sci-Hub. I understand the events you are referring to but you cannot use them as justification for actions like suspending Sci-Hub.
  - unityByFreedom 6y ago
    There probably is some Twitter-backed research on sci-hub but that's not the point. They can lawfully ban whoever they want as long as the basis is not race, sex etc.
  - ssakamoto 6y ago
    Sci-Hub Is a PRIVATE Company. They can ban who they like. Period.
    - apple_innocent 6y ago
      Sci-Hub is a company?
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        Probably meant Twitter. Sci-Hub is not a company.
root_axis 6y ago
Websites are not common carriers. >What is their justifcation for suspension. I don't see why they should need a justification. Just because something is popular doesn't mean people should be entitled to it. It makes no sense that an arbitrary MAU count suddenly rescinds the property rights of the people who pay money to keep the servers running, as well as to develop and maintain the software. Further, I don't see any benefit to society in policies that might encourage social media use, and speaking economically when these large platforms boot people off it actually increases competition and decreases their dominance because it creates a market opportunity for competitors, exactly like what happened with Parler. Suddenly, nobody seems to care that a conservative competitor to AWS is getting a huge account, shouldn't that be pereceived as a good thing? Why are the people who get banned so insistent on using services they claim are inherently unfair to them? Why not support companies that share your values?
- apple_innocent 6y ago
  100%. By the same token, however, despite how Section 230 has come to be interpreted, I think these companies should be held responsible for the user-generated content they publish. They should be publishing their own content not acting as middlemen, providing a so-called "platform". All in the interests of surveillance and selling advertising services. Telcos and cable providers provide access to the medium, i.e. the internet, whereas the web is just one protocol that allows internet users to publish. Having websites with 100s of millions of people posting to them is no substitute for peer-to-peer protocols (private communication) or websites owned by news organisations that employ journalists (publication).
  - root_axis 6y ago
    In my view we should leave Section 230 alone, instead we should target the true incentive of bad behavior: the ad model. If it were illegal for companies that collect PII and track users across 3rd party sites to sell ad space on their platforms, all these companies would have to switch to a subscription model like Netflix, shifting the economic incentives to favor user retention rather than advertiser appetites. This means companies lose money when they ban people rather than make money by cutting their losses on viral bandwidth that's too toxic to monetize through ads.
takeda 6y ago
you are mixing up net neutrality and a platform. Net Neutrality ensures that ISP do what the name says, providing Internet service without interfering with it, like restricting which sites you can visit. A platform like twitter, facebook, parler. Is something that was created from scratch and is owned by these companies. As of now it's not their duty to allow everyone in. And enforcing it is stepping on their freedom. Someone here or on reddit, suggested that perhaps the government supposed to provide such public platform. That's an interesting thought, because at that point I would agree that if such things would happen there such complaints would be justified.
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  > perhaps the government supposed to provide such public platform. Nah, inviting the government to moderate these platforms is the last thing we want. It's bad enough there are only a handful of them, we definitely don't want all that power under one person's control.
  - takeda 6y ago
    I agree, personally I think POTUS and other government officials should even be banned (not by twitter but by law) to officially uses such private forums.
    - unityByFreedom 6y ago
      Nah that would put incumbents at a disadvantage against their competition. And, forcing them to use more official accounts like @POTUS might give existing office-holders undue advantage. I think drawing the line at inciting violence is proper. We do need more competition at the platform level and I think this comes when we establish a competitive environment among ISPs and content conglomerates by reinstating net neutrality and discouraging regional broadband monopolies.
- apple_innocent 6y ago
  If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with. Instead these enourmous websites are filling what is now an obvious void in public services for communication. Perhaps I should not have used the term "common carrier" as that term has very specific meaning, and only in certain jurisdictions. What I mean is common carrier-like treatment by the public. People talk about these websites as if they are public services. Messenger apps are treated like they are interchangeable with telephone service. Practically speaking (i.e., how they are being used in practice), maybe, but beyond that I refuse to see them that way. These are not anywhere close to public services, IMO. Even the trend of websites that we would otherwise see as "public websites" containing "public information" that urge visitors to create "accounts" or "profiles" and "log in" is a disturbing evolution to me, blurring the line between public and private websites. Traditionally, a website that is protected by a password is not "open to the public". If "accounts" are required then disabling the account can disable "public access". Accounts can be disabled for any reason. Of course, that trend is probably driven by the commercialisation of the web as an advertiser's wet dream.
raxxorrax 6y ago
Twitter wants to be relevant infrastructure and ironically Trump gave most way to that. Personal opinion is that the best solution would be to dumb Twitter for any discussions, but especially political ones.
- fuzzfactor 6y ago
  If the headline read Twister Shuts Down Twitter I wouldn't miss it.

unityByFreedom 6y ago

> These massive websites/broadcast SMS cannot have it both ways. They cannot seek the protections of being "critical infrastructure" of any sort, common carrier, public forum, etc. and then, at the same time, disable user accounts for any reason just like any other private website. It's never been proposed that platforms like Twitter become common carriers. That designation was intended for the layer beneath them, ISPs. I agree that allowing that layer, ISPs, to effectively monopolize content via regional monopolies and ever-growing media conglomerates is problematic. Now they're implementing zero rating in broadband and that means there's a high bar for starting the next Netflix, Twitter etc. If you're not already part of that club you'll have to be super wealthy or take on huge debt from existing tech/wealth dominance just to get your foot in the door. We really need to encourage competition at the ISP level in order to allow for competition among services like Twitter.

konjin 6y ago
And ISPs were not common carriers until they were. It was only meant for the layer underneath them: telcos. The world changes and we should not be stuck with the technology of the 80s until the end of time.
- takeda 6y ago
  actually they were from the start, or more accurately telcos were required to provide their lines for ISPs.
  - konjin 6y ago
    Actually isps weren't common carriers until 2015 and aren't again today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/14/the-fcc-is-expected-to-repeal-its-net-neutrality-rules-today-in-a-sweeping-act-of-deregulation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/14...
    - unityByFreedom 6y ago
      And since 2015 social media platforms have had no real competition.
      - takeda 6y ago
        I used Facebook in 2006 and it already was taking over MySpace. I don't know where you got 2015 from, because how ISPs are treated has no impact on social media.
        unityByFreedom 6y ago
        2015 came from the parent comment. I'm saying the current tech platform powers got a lot stronger in the last 4 years.
    - takeda 6y ago

stjohnswarts 6y ago

I can't agree. It's their platform and they can leave up what they like. When someone starts advocating violence, treason, assassination then they can shut down that account. Also in national emergencies (like our current one with right wing extremists) it is also justified. I don't want section 230 undone, it will do far more damage than good.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Who did Sci-Hub advocate for assassination? What violence did they try to incite? What treasonous act did they commit? This conversation is about twitter nuking Sci-Hub. I understand the events you are referring to but you cannot use them as justification for actions like suspending Sci-Hub.
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  There probably is some Twitter-backed research on sci-hub but that's not the point. They can lawfully ban whoever they want as long as the basis is not race, sex etc.
- ssakamoto 6y ago
  Sci-Hub Is a PRIVATE Company. They can ban who they like. Period.
  - apple_innocent 6y ago
    Sci-Hub is a company?
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Probably meant Twitter. Sci-Hub is not a company.

root_axis 6y ago

Websites are not common carriers. >What is their justifcation for suspension. I don't see why they should need a justification. Just because something is popular doesn't mean people should be entitled to it. It makes no sense that an arbitrary MAU count suddenly rescinds the property rights of the people who pay money to keep the servers running, as well as to develop and maintain the software. Further, I don't see any benefit to society in policies that might encourage social media use, and speaking economically when these large platforms boot people off it actually increases competition and decreases their dominance because it creates a market opportunity for competitors, exactly like what happened with Parler. Suddenly, nobody seems to care that a conservative competitor to AWS is getting a huge account, shouldn't that be pereceived as a good thing? Why are the people who get banned so insistent on using services they claim are inherently unfair to them? Why not support companies that share your values?

apple_innocent 6y ago
100%. By the same token, however, despite how Section 230 has come to be interpreted, I think these companies should be held responsible for the user-generated content they publish. They should be publishing their own content not acting as middlemen, providing a so-called "platform". All in the interests of surveillance and selling advertising services. Telcos and cable providers provide access to the medium, i.e. the internet, whereas the web is just one protocol that allows internet users to publish. Having websites with 100s of millions of people posting to them is no substitute for peer-to-peer protocols (private communication) or websites owned by news organisations that employ journalists (publication).
- root_axis 6y ago
  In my view we should leave Section 230 alone, instead we should target the true incentive of bad behavior: the ad model. If it were illegal for companies that collect PII and track users across 3rd party sites to sell ad space on their platforms, all these companies would have to switch to a subscription model like Netflix, shifting the economic incentives to favor user retention rather than advertiser appetites. This means companies lose money when they ban people rather than make money by cutting their losses on viral bandwidth that's too toxic to monetize through ads.

takeda 6y ago

you are mixing up net neutrality and a platform. Net Neutrality ensures that ISP do what the name says, providing Internet service without interfering with it, like restricting which sites you can visit. A platform like twitter, facebook, parler. Is something that was created from scratch and is owned by these companies. As of now it's not their duty to allow everyone in. And enforcing it is stepping on their freedom. Someone here or on reddit, suggested that perhaps the government supposed to provide such public platform. That's an interesting thought, because at that point I would agree that if such things would happen there such complaints would be justified.

unityByFreedom 6y ago
> perhaps the government supposed to provide such public platform. Nah, inviting the government to moderate these platforms is the last thing we want. It's bad enough there are only a handful of them, we definitely don't want all that power under one person's control.
- takeda 6y ago
  I agree, personally I think POTUS and other government officials should even be banned (not by twitter but by law) to officially uses such private forums.
  - unityByFreedom 6y ago
    Nah that would put incumbents at a disadvantage against their competition. And, forcing them to use more official accounts like @POTUS might give existing office-holders undue advantage. I think drawing the line at inciting violence is proper. We do need more competition at the platform level and I think this comes when we establish a competitive environment among ISPs and content conglomerates by reinstating net neutrality and discouraging regional broadband monopolies.
apple_innocent 6y ago
If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with. Instead these enourmous websites are filling what is now an obvious void in public services for communication. Perhaps I should not have used the term "common carrier" as that term has very specific meaning, and only in certain jurisdictions. What I mean is common carrier-like treatment by the public. People talk about these websites as if they are public services. Messenger apps are treated like they are interchangeable with telephone service. Practically speaking (i.e., how they are being used in practice), maybe, but beyond that I refuse to see them that way. These are not anywhere close to public services, IMO. Even the trend of websites that we would otherwise see as "public websites" containing "public information" that urge visitors to create "accounts" or "profiles" and "log in" is a disturbing evolution to me, blurring the line between public and private websites. Traditionally, a website that is protected by a password is not "open to the public". If "accounts" are required then disabling the account can disable "public access". Accounts can be disabled for any reason. Of course, that trend is probably driven by the commercialisation of the web as an advertiser's wet dream.

raxxorrax 6y ago

Twitter wants to be relevant infrastructure and ironically Trump gave most way to that. Personal opinion is that the best solution would be to dumb Twitter for any discussions, but especially political ones.

fuzzfactor 6y ago
If the headline read Twister Shuts Down Twitter I wouldn't miss it.