4 ms·
To me, the question is how a common carrier status can coexist with content curation and promotion. Looking at the ur-example of the phone company, AT&T doesn'
by Majromax 5y ago
To me, the question is how a common carrier status can coexist with content curation and promotion.
Looking at the ur-example of the phone company, AT&T doesn't try to preemptively place calls that a household "might be interested in based on analytics."
The modern social media landscape, however, is dominated by "the algorithm." Youtube lives on its recommendations; Twitter wants you to keep refreshing its feed; even Hacker News tries to sort the front page by a combination of novelty and interest. In my opinion, this is a continuous, editorial judgment by the outlet, and it is very different from the idea of a "neutral public square" that exists as an objective point in space.
The fight isn't really about whether an individual person should have a right to send messages to other individual people on social media platforms; it's about whether the media platform has a responsibility to actively promote views without regard for their content. It's not about forcing the "shopping mall" to allow protesters (PruneYard, from the article), but instead it's about forcing the "shopping mall" to advertise that it's hosting protesters and include them on its maps and business lists.
(Edit to add:)
The article discusses this point somewhat in its section E, related to compelled recommendations, but I think the topic deserves much broader analysis. A "legally viewpoint-neutral Twitter" would be a Pyrrhic victory for proponents if Twitter could still restrict user's visibility to direct subscribers/replies only, denying the public part of its platform.
- amadeuspagel 5y ago> A "legally viewpoint-neutral Twitter" would be a Pyrrhic victory for proponents if Twitter could still restrict user's visibility to direct subscribers/replies only, denying the public part of its platform. I don't agree. I think that would be a huge victory. It would certainly not be pyrrhic in the sense that we would lose anything.
- slownews45 5y agoI think you will be surprised at how DISENGAGED folks are vis a vis a phone call on their AT&T line. Why? Because a damn ton of them are spam / scams. So yes, ATT doesn't filter calls, and users have learned not to answer them.
- shadilay 5y agoThe phone system is a failure of innovation. Some kind of caller id should be mandatory. There is no technical reason something akin to DNS for phone numbers can't exist. Phone companies would rather cash checks than innovate.
- temp8964 5y agoIf Twitter hides Trump from everyone doesn't follow him, but shows all his messages to everyone follows him. What is the problem then?
- wmf 5y agoThe problem from Trump's perspective is that he was getting a ton of engagement from non-followers and he wants that level of engagement back.
- ModernMech 5y agoThe problem for Twitter is that Trump used their platform to further incite a mob as they ransacked the US Capitol. Twitter doesn't want to be a conduit from Trump to his followers if the messages he delivers incite them to commit acts of violence and insurrection. There is a direct line from Trump tweeting about how Pence lacked the courage to deliver them the presidency by certifying what Trump called a "fraudulent vote", to Trump's followers chanting "Hang Mike Pence" in the halls of the Capitol when they got the message.
- temp8964 5y agoYes, you may interpret this way, but the U.S. law wouldn't designate those speeches as inciting violence. "direct line" is simply insufficient.