3 ms·

Each time the debate about free speech on social media comes up, people say: "well private platforms, they can censor whatever they want, they are not the gover

Each time the debate about free speech on social media comes up, people say: "well private platforms, they can censor whatever they want, they are not the government". Of course it only applies to the speech the former do not like: expediency. Here is a thing: social media grew that big because governments created a legal environment in which social media could grow that big. DMCA, safe harbor, the fact that social media are not liable for the content their users post... Are these social media entitled to all these favorable laws? My point is, it goes both ways. Yes social media as private companies can censor whatever legal content they want, No the government doesn't have to let them off the hook and doesn't have to keep a favorable legal or fiscal framework for these particular platforms to growth exponentially either... I'm not saying governments should crack down on these platforms, I'm just saying that ultimately, the legislator makes the laws... The platforms make money at scale, well how about they become liable "at scale" if the content is public?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
simonh 5y ago
Concerns about liability is why platforms like Youtube are blocking stuff, they're trying to self-police before the government hits them with a big liability hammer. So I'm not sure really what you're trying to say. You seem to be against safe harbour and laws that make them not liable. You argue that they should 'become liable at scale'. However you seem to be against their attempts to block content such regulations are likely to make them liable for. Yes of course, I know perfectly well this is an inappropriate example. None of us want it to have been blocked. Probably nobody at Youtube actually wants to block it either, they're just applying their rules inappropriately. In fact it looks like it's already unblocked. But who gets to write the rules and objectively define what is or isn't appropriate? If you want regulation and liability, edge cases like this are absolutely going to happen and we're going to have to find ways to manage that.
- geofft 5y ago
  I'm interpreting the comment above as advocating for the pre-Section 230 world, where as long as you didn't moderate at all, you were shielded from liability. I'm not sure that's good for the world per se (there's also no obligation for YouTube to collect contact info, so either you've effectively legalized defamation/libel because there's no way to hold anyone legally accountable for it in order to remove it, or you're replacing it with a DMCA-like system where mere accusations of defamation are enough to remove a video, thereby increasing censorship). But it is true that it's specific policy choice by lawmakers and we could choose differently.
misnome 5y ago
> I'm just saying that ultimately, the legislator makes the laws... Almost always when this debate is had, it's in the context of the US, where the First Amendment is a _hard_ stop against this sort of thing, but otherwise suggesting that the government have the final say over whatever you are allowed to say isn't historically a very popular suggestion. Of course, in other jurisdictions, they can pass whatever laws they want, and platforms can choose to comply, comply only locally, withdraw, or pay whatever fines to keep going as they are.
- oauea 5y ago
  Do you also think you should be able to freely share child pornography on HN as part of your free speech? Or is that not how it works at all?
  - misnome 5y ago
    Do you think that the government should force HN to host child pornography and not remove it if someone uploads it? Or is that not how it works at all?
    - oauea 5y ago
      Of course not, the government is free to pass whatever laws regulating whatever kind of content is allowed, as they should and have been doing. What is your point again?
      - misnome 5y ago
        It should be easy to work out the point, if you weren't being completely disingenuous. The topic of forcing platforms to remove illegal content is completely, utterly different to the topic of forcing them to host content, whether illegal or otherwise. And in the US, the government is _not_ free to pass laws forcing platforms to host, or remove, non-illegal content, without explicitly coming into conflict with the first amendment.
tored 5y ago
Problem here is that the legislators have skipped making laws on this area because of expedience, politicians have hotlines to the big tech where they can call in ask for content to be removed without any transparency or records whatsoever. And not only that big tech are in many cases subsidized by governments, decided by the same politicians that make the calls. We are talking about massive corruption on the highest level. This new way of governance is not confined to social media but it also been used excessively during the Covid pandemic, instead of doing the hard work of passing legislation in a legislative body, governments are using back channels to pressure companies, NGOs, cities, etc to do their bidding, without any transparency or records. It is obviously anti-democratic to its core. Free speech is not absolute, government has the right to censor, however is has to do it properly by passing legislation, using courts and other transparent institutions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

simonh 5y ago

Concerns about liability is why platforms like Youtube are blocking stuff, they're trying to self-police before the government hits them with a big liability hammer. So I'm not sure really what you're trying to say. You seem to be against safe harbour and laws that make them not liable. You argue that they should 'become liable at scale'. However you seem to be against their attempts to block content such regulations are likely to make them liable for. Yes of course, I know perfectly well this is an inappropriate example. None of us want it to have been blocked. Probably nobody at Youtube actually wants to block it either, they're just applying their rules inappropriately. In fact it looks like it's already unblocked. But who gets to write the rules and objectively define what is or isn't appropriate? If you want regulation and liability, edge cases like this are absolutely going to happen and we're going to have to find ways to manage that.

geofft 5y ago
I'm interpreting the comment above as advocating for the pre-Section 230 world, where as long as you didn't moderate at all, you were shielded from liability. I'm not sure that's good for the world per se (there's also no obligation for YouTube to collect contact info, so either you've effectively legalized defamation/libel because there's no way to hold anyone legally accountable for it in order to remove it, or you're replacing it with a DMCA-like system where mere accusations of defamation are enough to remove a video, thereby increasing censorship). But it is true that it's specific policy choice by lawmakers and we could choose differently.

misnome 5y ago

> I'm just saying that ultimately, the legislator makes the laws... Almost always when this debate is had, it's in the context of the US, where the First Amendment is a _hard_ stop against this sort of thing, but otherwise suggesting that the government have the final say over whatever you are allowed to say isn't historically a very popular suggestion. Of course, in other jurisdictions, they can pass whatever laws they want, and platforms can choose to comply, comply only locally, withdraw, or pay whatever fines to keep going as they are.

oauea 5y ago
Do you also think you should be able to freely share child pornography on HN as part of your free speech? Or is that not how it works at all?
- misnome 5y ago
  Do you think that the government should force HN to host child pornography and not remove it if someone uploads it? Or is that not how it works at all?
  - oauea 5y ago
    Of course not, the government is free to pass whatever laws regulating whatever kind of content is allowed, as they should and have been doing. What is your point again?
    - misnome 5y ago
      It should be easy to work out the point, if you weren't being completely disingenuous. The topic of forcing platforms to remove illegal content is completely, utterly different to the topic of forcing them to host content, whether illegal or otherwise. And in the US, the government is _not_ free to pass laws forcing platforms to host, or remove, non-illegal content, without explicitly coming into conflict with the first amendment.

tored 5y ago

Problem here is that the legislators have skipped making laws on this area because of expedience, politicians have hotlines to the big tech where they can call in ask for content to be removed without any transparency or records whatsoever. And not only that big tech are in many cases subsidized by governments, decided by the same politicians that make the calls. We are talking about massive corruption on the highest level. This new way of governance is not confined to social media but it also been used excessively during the Covid pandemic, instead of doing the hard work of passing legislation in a legislative body, governments are using back channels to pressure companies, NGOs, cities, etc to do their bidding, without any transparency or records. It is obviously anti-democratic to its core. Free speech is not absolute, government has the right to censor, however is has to do it properly by passing legislation, using courts and other transparent institutions.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]