5 ms·

I'm starting to look forward to the downfall of any of the FAANGs that become censorship happy. This shit has to stop and I know the 1st wasn't mean for private

I'm starting to look forward to the downfall of any of the FAANGs that become censorship happy. This shit has to stop and I know the 1st wasn't mean for private business, but now that private business has such a reach, it needs to be forced on them.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
I feel like I must be crazy that “speech loophole” is a serious term being thrown around at all. We can wish them gone all we want, but man I just don’t see it happening.
erikpukinskis 6y ago
Where would your law end? I’m curious how you’d write it... Would it be something like: “No person may delete content which has been made publically accessible on a server they administer without a court order demanding that content’s removal”? Would you have a certain size threshold, like the law kicks in when you hit 1 million monthly uniques?
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Where would your law end? I’m curious how you’d write it... There is an easy answer to this. We could just model this stuff after other similar laws, that apply to other networks. Those similar laws, are called common carrier laws, and they could be expanded to apply to more things.
  - andrewprock 6y ago
    The first step in that process is restoring net neutrality.
    - Const-me 6y ago
      I support net neutrality, but why do you think that should be the first step?
      - andrewprock 6y ago
        That ensures that ISPs and backbones cannot be the ones applying content guidelines.
        Const-me 6y ago
        I don’t think they can technically do that even if they wanted to. Not anymore, the internets have largely upgraded to https.
  - Traster 6y ago
    Common carrier laws are woefully inadequate for this. Social media doesn't function by me going to your webpage and seeing what you've written. Twitter, TikTok, Facebook, Youtube, every single one are primarily driven by algorithmic discovery. You go to youtube, youtube says "Hey! Here's our curated list of what we think our usres want to see". Making youtube a common carrier would be fine- they would be forced to host porn videos, spam and gore. The result of common carrier legislation on facebook is you'd have Alex Jones on facebook and not a single link, not a single trending page, would ever link to him ever. It would be functionallly undiscoverable. Which is basically where Alex Jones is today.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > are primarily driven by algorithmic discovery. The news feed is certainly driven by algorithmic discovery. But the standard user page, or user account, for any of these, is usually not. So, for example, a reasonable compromise would to apply common carrier laws to the places where it is possible. IE, allow people to have the user page. > It would be functionallly undiscoverable Disagree. There is still value in having that youtube user page for someone with existing audiences, even if they do not have youtube discovery. Furthermore, even if youtube refuses to do discovery for these pages, it would still be possible for 3rd parties to do discovery. Imagine if you could subscribe to a different discovery website that just takes information from youtube pages. That would be interesting to drive competition in discovery algorithms and give people choice over that.
duxup 6y ago
I don't think FAANGs are any more or less likely to take this stuff down than anyone else. If Pepsi was hosting a social network for 'the next generation'... they would take similar actions.
ojnabieoot 6y ago
The thing is that private companies also have 1st amendment rights, and ideas like “we need to force FAANGs to do business with horrible racists like the people who run Parler” is much more of a threat to free speech than “Parler can’t buy a fleet of r4xlarge EC2 instances to broadcast their racist propaganda.”

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago

I feel like I must be crazy that “speech loophole” is a serious term being thrown around at all. We can wish them gone all we want, but man I just don’t see it happening.

erikpukinskis 6y ago

Where would your law end? I’m curious how you’d write it... Would it be something like: “No person may delete content which has been made publically accessible on a server they administer without a court order demanding that content’s removal”? Would you have a certain size threshold, like the law kicks in when you hit 1 million monthly uniques?

stale2002 6y ago
> Where would your law end? I’m curious how you’d write it... There is an easy answer to this. We could just model this stuff after other similar laws, that apply to other networks. Those similar laws, are called common carrier laws, and they could be expanded to apply to more things.
- andrewprock 6y ago
  The first step in that process is restoring net neutrality.
  - Const-me 6y ago
    I support net neutrality, but why do you think that should be the first step?
    - andrewprock 6y ago
      That ensures that ISPs and backbones cannot be the ones applying content guidelines.
      - Const-me 6y ago
        I don’t think they can technically do that even if they wanted to. Not anymore, the internets have largely upgraded to https.
- Traster 6y ago
  Common carrier laws are woefully inadequate for this. Social media doesn't function by me going to your webpage and seeing what you've written. Twitter, TikTok, Facebook, Youtube, every single one are primarily driven by algorithmic discovery. You go to youtube, youtube says "Hey! Here's our curated list of what we think our usres want to see". Making youtube a common carrier would be fine- they would be forced to host porn videos, spam and gore. The result of common carrier legislation on facebook is you'd have Alex Jones on facebook and not a single link, not a single trending page, would ever link to him ever. It would be functionallly undiscoverable. Which is basically where Alex Jones is today.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > are primarily driven by algorithmic discovery. The news feed is certainly driven by algorithmic discovery. But the standard user page, or user account, for any of these, is usually not. So, for example, a reasonable compromise would to apply common carrier laws to the places where it is possible. IE, allow people to have the user page. > It would be functionallly undiscoverable Disagree. There is still value in having that youtube user page for someone with existing audiences, even if they do not have youtube discovery. Furthermore, even if youtube refuses to do discovery for these pages, it would still be possible for 3rd parties to do discovery. Imagine if you could subscribe to a different discovery website that just takes information from youtube pages. That would be interesting to drive competition in discovery algorithms and give people choice over that.

duxup 6y ago

I don't think FAANGs are any more or less likely to take this stuff down than anyone else. If Pepsi was hosting a social network for 'the next generation'... they would take similar actions.

ojnabieoot 6y ago

The thing is that private companies also have 1st amendment rights, and ideas like “we need to force FAANGs to do business with horrible racists like the people who run Parler” is much more of a threat to free speech than “Parler can’t buy a fleet of r4xlarge EC2 instances to broadcast their racist propaganda.”