3 ms·

One issue that people brought up is that “curation” (or moderation even) is not really possible with a “carrier”-type hosting platform, but I think that special

One issue that people brought up is that “curation” (or moderation even) is not really possible with a “carrier”-type hosting platform, but I think that specialized or niche forums are a good thing. On the other hand, it is clear that heavy handed suppression is not good either, especially when all major platforms do that. Is it possible to have both alternatives available somehow?

jollybean 5y ago
Neither VISA nor Amazon 'curate' either which is why I lean towards some kind of light regulation towards 'open access' as opposed to them kicking people out arbitrarily. But I like your 'have the cake and eat it too' thinking! ... I wonder if companies on the margins could be given either the option of Section 230 protections, but then also have an obligation to curate for some things, and to have some kind of 'consistently objective rules' ... or ... take the more 'neutral' approach and wash their hands of everything and be obligated to provide services for 'pretty much anything legal' ... which in this case would be interesting because GoDaddy is looking mostly to avoid populist outrage. If they are legally bound to allow the 'legal site' ... well ... there's little they can do ant the outrage would have be oriented towards the legislators. My feeling is that both our current Net Neutrality and Section 230 just don't provide very well in the middle ground cases.
- hypothesis 5y ago
  Maybe it’s naive to think that that we can legislate those two options into existence where a company can pick an option (and maybe even switch between them under some circumstances), but it would be nice to see a “free market” finding one that most efficient without everyone being forced to just use one. For Visa, wasn’t the latest OnlyFan thing that payment networks almost forced them to self-destruct due to some morality rules? That would be a bit too restrictive for “carrier” case I think…

jollybean 5y ago

Neither VISA nor Amazon 'curate' either which is why I lean towards some kind of light regulation towards 'open access' as opposed to them kicking people out arbitrarily. But I like your 'have the cake and eat it too' thinking! ... I wonder if companies on the margins could be given either the option of Section 230 protections, but then also have an obligation to curate for some things, and to have some kind of 'consistently objective rules' ... or ... take the more 'neutral' approach and wash their hands of everything and be obligated to provide services for 'pretty much anything legal' ... which in this case would be interesting because GoDaddy is looking mostly to avoid populist outrage. If they are legally bound to allow the 'legal site' ... well ... there's little they can do ant the outrage would have be oriented towards the legislators. My feeling is that both our current Net Neutrality and Section 230 just don't provide very well in the middle ground cases.

hypothesis 5y ago
Maybe it’s naive to think that that we can legislate those two options into existence where a company can pick an option (and maybe even switch between them under some circumstances), but it would be nice to see a “free market” finding one that most efficient without everyone being forced to just use one. For Visa, wasn’t the latest OnlyFan thing that payment networks almost forced them to self-destruct due to some morality rules? That would be a bit too restrictive for “carrier” case I think…