3 ms·

> The phone company is a common carrier, under the Communications Act of 1934, which is why it can't cancel your line in the scenario you gave. > GoDaddy is no

> The phone company is a common carrier, under the Communications Act of 1934, which is why it can't cancel your line in the scenario you gave. > GoDaddy is not regulated under common carrier laws. > In the absence of any law saying otherwise, GoDaddy can exercise its freedom of association to kick off people for whatever reason [...] m0zg saying that it should be illegal presumably means that they already know that it's not currently illegal, rather they want similar regulations introduced (or the removal of existing protections) to affect GoDaddy. > Should that also be illegal? The way I often see it argued by those in favor of repealing/reinterpreting Section 230 is that a service shouldn't have the protections of a platform/carrier while acting as a publisher with full control over the content. A curated software library should be fine as a publisher, just that they'd only have the same protections as non-digital publishers.

eesmith 5y ago
m0zg's argument is "If it's in compliance with US law, I should be able to host whatever the fuck I want.", justified by pointing to common carrier status for telcos. This has nothing to do with Section 230. If hosting means being a common carrier, then GNU must be forced to host non-free software, yes? The social media site Ravelry banned users from expressing support for the US President Donald Trump. m0zg's argument appears to be that that prohibition should be illegal. That is, it really seems like m0zg is against the First Amendment freedom of association, and not some commentary about equality of civil lawsuit liability for publishers. Now, I'm fine with some restrictions on a businesses' right of free association, as when they conflict with personal civil rights. But what makes hosting companies so critical so as to require common carrier-like restrictions that no other (non-common-carrier) companies faces? Non-digital publishers aren't required to publish anything not illegal they get.
- treesprite82 5y ago
  > If hosting means being a common carrier, then GNU must be forced to host non-free software, yes? If you take the most extreme interpretation, then you could even claim that m0zg wants any random person to be able to publish freely on https://www.nytimes.com/ https://www.nytimes.com/ But generally I see this camp hold a distinction between publisher and host/platform. A curated software library (or news site) would be fine to act as a publisher and only include whatever software they want - just that they'd be responsible for the content published in the same way any non-digital publisher would be. > This has nothing to do with Section 230. > That is, it really seems like m0zg is against the First Amendment freedom of association, and not some commentary about equality of civil lawsuit liability for publishers. It's not specifically that they care about the equality of civil lawsuit liability for publishers. I believe the main hope is that infrastructure like website hosts, DDoS protection, ISPs, domain registrars, email, messaging clients, etc. would stop acting as publishers due to the infeasibility of actually being the "publisher" of all user content when the special protections are removed. > Non-digital publishers aren't required to publish anything not illegal they get. I don't think anyone is arguing that publishers should be required to do so. Rather that hosts and infrastructure like ISPs are acting as publishers when instead they should be common carriers (or subject to similar protections and regulations). I personally like the idea for infrastructure with limited competition like ISPs, but I think the publisher/carrier dichotomy leaves out moderated sites like this one, where the host should presumably have some responsibility (responding to infringement complaints in a certain timeframe) and some editorial control (deleting user content as they see fit).
  - eesmith 5y ago
    GoDaddy is nominally ending service for violations of a ToS, presumably regarding storage of third-party personal information. Let's assume it's false cover for refusing support due to political viewpoint. There are investment funds which specially avoid investing in, say, tobacco companies, or fossil fuel companies, or (historically) apartheid South Africa, sometimes explicitly doing so for political reasons. It seems that the trivial solution for GoDaddy would be to say they are an "ethical" company which doesn't support forced childbirth proponent organizations, etc. . That would be an explicit rejection of supporting 'all user content' and thus avoid regulations meant for a 'publisher/carrier dichotomy'. Any argument which say that should be illegal seems also like an argument for why Ravelry can't decide for themselves to reject obviously non-knitting content divisive to the site.
    - treesprite82 5y ago
      > That would be an explicit rejection of supporting 'all user content' and thus avoid regulations meant for a 'publisher/carrier dichotomy'. Under the intended changes, this would give them the same liabilities as non-digital publishers. Currently Section 230 provides special protections for digital services. > Any argument which say that should be illegal seems also like an argument for why Ravelry can't decide for themselves to reject obviously non-knitting content divisive to the site. It wouldn't be illegal, but the idea is that it'd be infeasible for infrastructure to act as a publisher. E.G: Comcast couldn't block all anarchist content if acting as a common carrier. It'd require acting as a publisher, which comes with liabilities they're unlikely able to take on.
      - eesmith 5y ago
        Okay, if "illegal" is the wrong word, then it would be "infeasible" for Ravelry to prohibit Trump discussions without taking on liabilities they are unlikely able to take on? Why does that make sense? The only options are "infrastructure" = "common carrier" and "provide editorial oversight on all materials?" What do other countries do?

eesmith 5y ago

m0zg's argument is "If it's in compliance with US law, I should be able to host whatever the fuck I want.", justified by pointing to common carrier status for telcos. This has nothing to do with Section 230. If hosting means being a common carrier, then GNU must be forced to host non-free software, yes? The social media site Ravelry banned users from expressing support for the US President Donald Trump. m0zg's argument appears to be that that prohibition should be illegal. That is, it really seems like m0zg is against the First Amendment freedom of association, and not some commentary about equality of civil lawsuit liability for publishers. Now, I'm fine with some restrictions on a businesses' right of free association, as when they conflict with personal civil rights. But what makes hosting companies so critical so as to require common carrier-like restrictions that no other (non-common-carrier) companies faces? Non-digital publishers aren't required to publish anything not illegal they get.

treesprite82 5y ago
> If hosting means being a common carrier, then GNU must be forced to host non-free software, yes? If you take the most extreme interpretation, then you could even claim that m0zg wants any random person to be able to publish freely on https://www.nytimes.com/ https://www.nytimes.com/ But generally I see this camp hold a distinction between publisher and host/platform. A curated software library (or news site) would be fine to act as a publisher and only include whatever software they want - just that they'd be responsible for the content published in the same way any non-digital publisher would be. > This has nothing to do with Section 230. > That is, it really seems like m0zg is against the First Amendment freedom of association, and not some commentary about equality of civil lawsuit liability for publishers. It's not specifically that they care about the equality of civil lawsuit liability for publishers. I believe the main hope is that infrastructure like website hosts, DDoS protection, ISPs, domain registrars, email, messaging clients, etc. would stop acting as publishers due to the infeasibility of actually being the "publisher" of all user content when the special protections are removed. > Non-digital publishers aren't required to publish anything not illegal they get. I don't think anyone is arguing that publishers should be required to do so. Rather that hosts and infrastructure like ISPs are acting as publishers when instead they should be common carriers (or subject to similar protections and regulations). I personally like the idea for infrastructure with limited competition like ISPs, but I think the publisher/carrier dichotomy leaves out moderated sites like this one, where the host should presumably have some responsibility (responding to infringement complaints in a certain timeframe) and some editorial control (deleting user content as they see fit).
- eesmith 5y ago
  GoDaddy is nominally ending service for violations of a ToS, presumably regarding storage of third-party personal information. Let's assume it's false cover for refusing support due to political viewpoint. There are investment funds which specially avoid investing in, say, tobacco companies, or fossil fuel companies, or (historically) apartheid South Africa, sometimes explicitly doing so for political reasons. It seems that the trivial solution for GoDaddy would be to say they are an "ethical" company which doesn't support forced childbirth proponent organizations, etc. . That would be an explicit rejection of supporting 'all user content' and thus avoid regulations meant for a 'publisher/carrier dichotomy'. Any argument which say that should be illegal seems also like an argument for why Ravelry can't decide for themselves to reject obviously non-knitting content divisive to the site.
  - treesprite82 5y ago
    > That would be an explicit rejection of supporting 'all user content' and thus avoid regulations meant for a 'publisher/carrier dichotomy'. Under the intended changes, this would give them the same liabilities as non-digital publishers. Currently Section 230 provides special protections for digital services. > Any argument which say that should be illegal seems also like an argument for why Ravelry can't decide for themselves to reject obviously non-knitting content divisive to the site. It wouldn't be illegal, but the idea is that it'd be infeasible for infrastructure to act as a publisher. E.G: Comcast couldn't block all anarchist content if acting as a common carrier. It'd require acting as a publisher, which comes with liabilities they're unlikely able to take on.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      Okay, if "illegal" is the wrong word, then it would be "infeasible" for Ravelry to prohibit Trump discussions without taking on liabilities they are unlikely able to take on? Why does that make sense? The only options are "infrastructure" = "common carrier" and "provide editorial oversight on all materials?" What do other countries do?