4 ms·

For context: This paper argues that online platforms constitute a sort of "infrastructure" similar to utilities, and that they should be regulated to guarantee

For context: This paper argues that online platforms constitute a sort of "infrastructure" similar to utilities, and that they should be regulated to guarantee equal access. This idea is not new - it has been discussed under different terms, e.g. with relation to "must carry"-rules for cable providers. To simplify a bit, the argument boils down to the question of liability and responsibility for content curation. Platforms either curate content and are liable; in this scenario, they may be held accountable within media regulatory norms. Or they don't curate and provide equal access, then they aren't liable and free from media regulatory normative standards. Note that the US' pretty exceptional take on free speech (as an untouchable right) very much complicates this simplified description.

no-dr-onboard 5y ago
Having only read the introduction of this paper myself, this seems to be an apt summary of its contents. Also worth noting that the language in this paper is very approachable and rife with footnotes that often point to past legal decisions, if not precedents. Even if you don't agree with the thesis of this paper, it still makes for an eloquent and informative read of one side of the aisle.
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  Well, it is a scholarly law paper. [edit] To clarify: Being a scholarly law paper means that (1) it is well-documented and thoroughly researched, but also (2) it may employ words that seem to have a common-sense meaning but really don't. Things such as "fair", "bias", "access", "responsible" etc. have very precise legal meanings that are not readily apparent.
Causality1 5y ago
I think this is only an issue because there is no public digital infrastructure. We need an "internet post office" whose only rules are the law, operates at-cost for users, and is completely free of liability. For example, you can't sue the post office if someone mails a pirated DVD. Would it be used almost exclusively by extremists and lunatics? Probably, but I still think it's worth having if only in light of all the HN stories about how some account slip-up at Google utterly ruined someone's life. Everyone deserves an email address they can never lose access to.
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  Whether this is a good idea is seen differently in different countries. Countries with strong public service broadcasters (e.g. the BBC in the UK) tend to consider state-run information infrastructure a good idea, at least in a dual system including private corporations. Countries without public service media see private marked actors as perfectly sufficient. Needless to say, the US is squarely the second type.
- dageshi 5y ago
  Isn't that sort of basically email now? If you sub to the mailing list of "extremists and lunatics" then you'll probably get your email on extreme and lunatic issues. The issue is, the extremists and lunatics don't just want email, they want twitter, facebook and all the inherent amplification capabilities of both. Not just a 1 to 1 message, not even a 1 to many messages but full on advertising to potentially interested users the same as the cat pics/videos get.
- satyrnein 5y ago
  Do extremists and lunatics want their email handled by the government?
- cvwright 5y ago
  Interestingly, there are hints that some countries are looking into providing Matrix accounts for all of their citizens. I don't think there's been a formal announcement yet, but it was mentioned in one of their Matrix Live videos a couple of weeks ago. Personally, I see pluses and minuses. Yay, free Matrix for everyone. Boo, your government can monitor everything you do on that server.
ergot_vacation 5y ago
The advantage of the paper is that it has a great deal of detail and research, done apparently by someone with actual knowledge of the law and case history in question. Usual discussions of the common carrier or public space argument tend to stop at a surface level because everyone involved in the discussion only has basic knowledge and training, so it's interesting to see it more carefully examined. As just one example, it argues that social media companies are not necessarily protected from being compelled to host content they disagree with simply because it would be "compelled speech," as stated in the rejection of recent Florida legislation. There are a number of existing cases where entities were compelled to do just that because they were operating a public space, even if privately owned (a shopping mall for example). Agree or disagree, this is information I wasn't aware of (and probably a lot of readers here as well), so it's interesting information to have.
jasode 5y ago
>, and that they should be regulated to guarantee equal access. You mentioned the UK BBC in another comment. Here are some examples of BBC censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom#Radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd... If the government-run BBC sometimes censors certain topics, I'm confused as to how that same government becomes a watchdog & enforcer over private corporations designated as "common carrier" and not censor. In other words, what higher power over the UK government forces them not to censor? There's an inherent contradiction enforcing an "equal access" law because the government itself doesn't follow it. This has unavoidable effects on government regulation of the private corporations it oversees. The "common carrier" designation is easy to implement when communication is point-to-point with paid subscriptions (e.g. telephones) -- instead of broadcast funded with ads or government taxes (e.g. Facebook/Twitter, BBC). There is no government in the world that allows broadcast of any topic without interference.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  It's more like publishing than broadcast. Somewhere in between those two I think. Edit: the difference comes in where there are feeds and recommendations popping up to users who haven't previously subscribed to something. That and the volume/media.
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  This is a tangential argument, but of course government-provided media are not devoid of censorship/bias. That's because nobody is. The market is also not devoid of censorship/bias, neither in its supply of information nor in the resulting consumption. Public service broadcasters are not about alleviating censorship; they are primarily a means of providing a solid base level of access to information. They cannot reasonably provide access to all information. Your remarks on oversight are a very valid concern; that's why Germany, for example, has publicly funded (not state-funded; they get a mandatory fee from citizens over which the state has no control) but state-independent public service institutions. There's much more to the argument, but a central point here is the shift from regulating supply to regulating consumption. One can trivially argue that platforms are harmless because any censorship they implement is not total in the sense of absolute government censorship - you're free to publish your stuff elsewhere. But today, more and more countries are seeking to ensure healthy consumption of information, and to enable this, they need to intervene in platforms' content curation. It's a dangerous argument, of course, because this is precisely what totalitarian states are doing. But - and this is important - regulating content is something that democracies have always had to do, e.g. banning libelous content, revenge porn etc. etc.

no-dr-onboard 5y ago

Having only read the introduction of this paper myself, this seems to be an apt summary of its contents. Also worth noting that the language in this paper is very approachable and rife with footnotes that often point to past legal decisions, if not precedents. Even if you don't agree with the thesis of this paper, it still makes for an eloquent and informative read of one side of the aisle.

uniqueuid 5y ago
Well, it is a scholarly law paper. [edit] To clarify: Being a scholarly law paper means that (1) it is well-documented and thoroughly researched, but also (2) it may employ words that seem to have a common-sense meaning but really don't. Things such as "fair", "bias", "access", "responsible" etc. have very precise legal meanings that are not readily apparent.

Causality1 5y ago

I think this is only an issue because there is no public digital infrastructure. We need an "internet post office" whose only rules are the law, operates at-cost for users, and is completely free of liability. For example, you can't sue the post office if someone mails a pirated DVD. Would it be used almost exclusively by extremists and lunatics? Probably, but I still think it's worth having if only in light of all the HN stories about how some account slip-up at Google utterly ruined someone's life. Everyone deserves an email address they can never lose access to.

uniqueuid 5y ago
Whether this is a good idea is seen differently in different countries. Countries with strong public service broadcasters (e.g. the BBC in the UK) tend to consider state-run information infrastructure a good idea, at least in a dual system including private corporations. Countries without public service media see private marked actors as perfectly sufficient. Needless to say, the US is squarely the second type.
dageshi 5y ago
Isn't that sort of basically email now? If you sub to the mailing list of "extremists and lunatics" then you'll probably get your email on extreme and lunatic issues. The issue is, the extremists and lunatics don't just want email, they want twitter, facebook and all the inherent amplification capabilities of both. Not just a 1 to 1 message, not even a 1 to many messages but full on advertising to potentially interested users the same as the cat pics/videos get.
satyrnein 5y ago
Do extremists and lunatics want their email handled by the government?
cvwright 5y ago
Interestingly, there are hints that some countries are looking into providing Matrix accounts for all of their citizens. I don't think there's been a formal announcement yet, but it was mentioned in one of their Matrix Live videos a couple of weeks ago. Personally, I see pluses and minuses. Yay, free Matrix for everyone. Boo, your government can monitor everything you do on that server.

ergot_vacation 5y ago

The advantage of the paper is that it has a great deal of detail and research, done apparently by someone with actual knowledge of the law and case history in question. Usual discussions of the common carrier or public space argument tend to stop at a surface level because everyone involved in the discussion only has basic knowledge and training, so it's interesting to see it more carefully examined. As just one example, it argues that social media companies are not necessarily protected from being compelled to host content they disagree with simply because it would be "compelled speech," as stated in the rejection of recent Florida legislation. There are a number of existing cases where entities were compelled to do just that because they were operating a public space, even if privately owned (a shopping mall for example). Agree or disagree, this is information I wasn't aware of (and probably a lot of readers here as well), so it's interesting information to have.

jasode 5y ago

>, and that they should be regulated to guarantee equal access. You mentioned the UK BBC in another comment. Here are some examples of BBC censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom#Radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd... If the government-run BBC sometimes censors certain topics, I'm confused as to how that same government becomes a watchdog & enforcer over private corporations designated as "common carrier" and not censor. In other words, what higher power over the UK government forces them not to censor? There's an inherent contradiction enforcing an "equal access" law because the government itself doesn't follow it. This has unavoidable effects on government regulation of the private corporations it oversees. The "common carrier" designation is easy to implement when communication is point-to-point with paid subscriptions (e.g. telephones) -- instead of broadcast funded with ads or government taxes (e.g. Facebook/Twitter, BBC). There is no government in the world that allows broadcast of any topic without interference.

HPsquared 5y ago
It's more like publishing than broadcast. Somewhere in between those two I think. Edit: the difference comes in where there are feeds and recommendations popping up to users who haven't previously subscribed to something. That and the volume/media.
uniqueuid 5y ago
This is a tangential argument, but of course government-provided media are not devoid of censorship/bias. That's because nobody is. The market is also not devoid of censorship/bias, neither in its supply of information nor in the resulting consumption. Public service broadcasters are not about alleviating censorship; they are primarily a means of providing a solid base level of access to information. They cannot reasonably provide access to all information. Your remarks on oversight are a very valid concern; that's why Germany, for example, has publicly funded (not state-funded; they get a mandatory fee from citizens over which the state has no control) but state-independent public service institutions. There's much more to the argument, but a central point here is the shift from regulating supply to regulating consumption. One can trivially argue that platforms are harmless because any censorship they implement is not total in the sense of absolute government censorship - you're free to publish your stuff elsewhere. But today, more and more countries are seeking to ensure healthy consumption of information, and to enable this, they need to intervene in platforms' content curation. It's a dangerous argument, of course, because this is precisely what totalitarian states are doing. But - and this is important - regulating content is something that democracies have always had to do, e.g. banning libelous content, revenge porn etc. etc.