4 ms·

> How does that even work? Well, it could work similar to the existing and uncontroversial laws, that are already widespread on certain communication companies

by stale2002 5y ago

> How does that even work? Well, it could work similar to the existing and uncontroversial laws, that are already widespread on certain communication companies. Specifically, we could take common carrier laws, which already apply to certain communication companies, and extend them. Those laws are uncontroversial, and established. So it is silly to claim that such a thing is unconventional. > We’ll have to repeal the first amendment No we won't. Common carrier laws already exist, and we didn't have to repeal the 1st amendment to have them.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Please cite the exact laws that we ought to apply to social media companies and do touch on how the application of said laws will avoid infringing on these companies civil rights.
- baumy 5y ago
  Exact laws: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchap... The rest of your question I consider invalid. Companies do not have civil rights [1]. Hell, it's in the definition of the word: "relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters" But clearly the existing common carrier regulations don't infringe on the "civil rights" of the companies they apply to, so even accepting your false premise, this is very straightforward. [1] or at least, they didn't until extremely recently https://www.inquirer.com/business/hobby-lobby-citizens-united-corporations-free-speech-20190108.html https://www.inquirer.com/business/hobby-lobby-citizens-unite...
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    The law you linked just in plain language doesn't apply to websites. Not only does it not apply to websites but laws like CDA Section 230 explicitly disclaim any such regulation by explicitly providing for and protecting their right to moderate their users content. It's disingenuous to suppose that existing laws already cover the situation when one law has nothing to say about the matter and at least one contrary law would need to be repealed. We must then look at WHY common carrier laws exist. It is often impractical to have parallel communication infrastructure in the same way as it is impractical to have a parallel system of roads and bridges so it is important that it serve all comers in order to provide for the needs of society. Social media is the exact opposite. They are a dime a dozen and no barrier exists to making another one. If it comes to pass you don't have much of an audience on your alternative network that is a personal problem not an issue for society to solve for you by enforcing your presence where you aren't wanted.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      You just said this "Please cite the exact laws that we ought to apply " Emphasis on the word "ought". And you responded to someone bringing up other laws by saying this "to suppose that existing laws already cover the situation ". Which nobody said. Instead, the other person was directly answering your question, of which specific laws "ought" be applied to social media companies. The implication being, that they do not currently apply now, but should, by changing the law such that they do. > at least one contrary law would need to be repealed You used the word ought. That was your premise. And someone answered your question of what ought happen. So, the implication, is that other contrary law, also ought be changed. I am not sure why this always happens in these types of conversations. People say X is bad, and then someone else comes in and says "Well actually, X is totally legal!". Nobody here said anything about it being illegal. Instead we said that X is bad. And the implication being that we want something to change, such that the bad thing stops. Saying X is legal, is just an end run around, to ignore the original point that was brought up, by talking about the legality, when nobody brought up was is legal in the first place. Yeah, we knows the bad thing is legal. Thats why it is happening. Thats why we are complaining about it. Because it is legal, and happening, and we don't want it to happen, and we want to figure out a way to make it not happen. That why, in my original comment I said that we should "extend" common carrier laws. "Extend" means change. It means that I already know that common carriers laws don't apply, and I want them to apply. By changing those laws. Like, my god. This always happens, and the conversations are so stupid.
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  Rest of the world doesn't care about your laws or rights, when youtube is doing business in a country they have every legal right/opportunity to write laws to demand whatever they want from the company.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    In some cases it would make sense to comply in others it would make more sense to refuse especially if compliance with one nations laws would interfere with the companies core product. For example if smallistan decided that material critical of its monarch must be expunged from all of youtube not just the content served inside smallistan then it would be in everyone else's interest if Google ignored them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

michaelmrose 5y ago

Please cite the exact laws that we ought to apply to social media companies and do touch on how the application of said laws will avoid infringing on these companies civil rights.

baumy 5y ago
Exact laws: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchap... The rest of your question I consider invalid. Companies do not have civil rights [1]. Hell, it's in the definition of the word: "relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters" But clearly the existing common carrier regulations don't infringe on the "civil rights" of the companies they apply to, so even accepting your false premise, this is very straightforward. [1] or at least, they didn't until extremely recently https://www.inquirer.com/business/hobby-lobby-citizens-united-corporations-free-speech-20190108.html https://www.inquirer.com/business/hobby-lobby-citizens-unite...
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  The law you linked just in plain language doesn't apply to websites. Not only does it not apply to websites but laws like CDA Section 230 explicitly disclaim any such regulation by explicitly providing for and protecting their right to moderate their users content. It's disingenuous to suppose that existing laws already cover the situation when one law has nothing to say about the matter and at least one contrary law would need to be repealed. We must then look at WHY common carrier laws exist. It is often impractical to have parallel communication infrastructure in the same way as it is impractical to have a parallel system of roads and bridges so it is important that it serve all comers in order to provide for the needs of society. Social media is the exact opposite. They are a dime a dozen and no barrier exists to making another one. If it comes to pass you don't have much of an audience on your alternative network that is a personal problem not an issue for society to solve for you by enforcing your presence where you aren't wanted.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    You just said this "Please cite the exact laws that we ought to apply " Emphasis on the word "ought". And you responded to someone bringing up other laws by saying this "to suppose that existing laws already cover the situation ". Which nobody said. Instead, the other person was directly answering your question, of which specific laws "ought" be applied to social media companies. The implication being, that they do not currently apply now, but should, by changing the law such that they do. > at least one contrary law would need to be repealed You used the word ought. That was your premise. And someone answered your question of what ought happen. So, the implication, is that other contrary law, also ought be changed. I am not sure why this always happens in these types of conversations. People say X is bad, and then someone else comes in and says "Well actually, X is totally legal!". Nobody here said anything about it being illegal. Instead we said that X is bad. And the implication being that we want something to change, such that the bad thing stops. Saying X is legal, is just an end run around, to ignore the original point that was brought up, by talking about the legality, when nobody brought up was is legal in the first place. Yeah, we knows the bad thing is legal. Thats why it is happening. Thats why we are complaining about it. Because it is legal, and happening, and we don't want it to happen, and we want to figure out a way to make it not happen. That why, in my original comment I said that we should "extend" common carrier laws. "Extend" means change. It means that I already know that common carriers laws don't apply, and I want them to apply. By changing those laws. Like, my god. This always happens, and the conversations are so stupid.
Dma54rhs 5y ago
Rest of the world doesn't care about your laws or rights, when youtube is doing business in a country they have every legal right/opportunity to write laws to demand whatever they want from the company.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  In some cases it would make sense to comply in others it would make more sense to refuse especially if compliance with one nations laws would interfere with the companies core product. For example if smallistan decided that material critical of its monarch must be expunged from all of youtube not just the content served inside smallistan then it would be in everyone else's interest if Google ignored them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]