3 ms·

>, 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:/

by 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.
amadeuspagel 5y ago
> 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. The paper deals with the supposed distinction between point-to-point and broadcast. In brief, it's not very clear. Consider the postal service: If millions of people subscribe to a magazine, is that point-to-point communication or broadcasting? How is it different from millions of people subscribing to a youtube channel? Or following someone on twitter?

by jasode 5y ago

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.

amadeuspagel 5y ago

> 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. The paper deals with the supposed distinction between point-to-point and broadcast. In brief, it's not very clear. Consider the postal service: If millions of people subscribe to a magazine, is that point-to-point communication or broadcasting? How is it different from millions of people subscribing to a youtube channel? Or following someone on twitter?