5 ms·

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,

by 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.
- unityByFreedom 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. Having the government provide the platform would create a huge burden on one entity to moderate content. Any mistake would be magnified 1000x what they are now. It would end free speech as we know it and would be very expensive. Instead we encourage businesses to moderate their own content and compete for a userbase. That allows platforms to evolve on their own dime with incremental changes that satisfy their respective userbases.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - catlifeonmars 6y ago
    That would work if the interests of social media platforms are aligned with the interests of its users, but that is not the case. Rather, social media platform interests are aligned with their monetization vectors. This is a classic agent problem.
nathias 6y ago
Platforms have been exempted from being sued for content as they were claiming neutrality and now that they are monopolies bigger than most countries they are starting to employ their own moderation and censorship. We should either break them up and make competition possible or enforce their neutrality.

by takeda 6y ago

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.

unityByFreedom 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. Having the government provide the platform would create a huge burden on one entity to moderate content. Any mistake would be magnified 1000x what they are now. It would end free speech as we know it and would be very expensive. Instead we encourage businesses to moderate their own content and compete for a userbase. That allows platforms to evolve on their own dime with incremental changes that satisfy their respective userbases.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- catlifeonmars 6y ago
  That would work if the interests of social media platforms are aligned with the interests of its users, but that is not the case. Rather, social media platform interests are aligned with their monetization vectors. This is a classic agent problem.

nathias 6y ago

Platforms have been exempted from being sued for content as they were claiming neutrality and now that they are monopolies bigger than most countries they are starting to employ their own moderation and censorship. We should either break them up and make competition possible or enforce their neutrality.