3 ms·

History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Electric power, water, sewage, phone, internet access... each has its own specific history, times 170 countr

History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Electric power, water, sewage, phone, internet access... each has its own specific history, times 170 countries. Not all identical, but the outcomes are pretty similar. SM is clearly different from that and very much still in flux, and overly regulating it would be more of a burden than an advantage. Some amount of regulation may help though, especially designed to encourage diversity of ideas. But mostly I wanted to counter the meme that "it's not censorship if it's a private company". Yes it is, when you have only one twitter and a handful of SM companies in total. It's not the ownership that matters, it's the ubiquity and the effect.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Some amount of regulation may help though, especially designed to encourage diversity of ideas I wonder if limited Section 512 reform is the answer [1]. Remove it for social media platforms over a certain size that sell ads. Create a safe harbour if they form an independent appeals commission, like the one Facebook did; but with teeth on enforcement, tightly-scoped but binding rulemaking powers, and rules about how its members are chosen. Company can flag and ban. Users can appeal. Commission can go to the courts to enforce its will or force discovery. (Maybe throw in a couple commission members elected by users, I don’t know.) [1] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyright-safe-harbor/ https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyr...
anamax 5y ago
FWIW, there is a precedent regarding shopping malls and the like. They are clearly private property, yet they must provide access for political activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
btreecat 5y ago
>History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Electric power, water, sewage, phone, internet access... each has its own specific history, times 170 countries. Not all identical, but the outcomes are pretty similar. They all require physical infrastructure to every house, to provide service capacity. As such, we don't want 7 different companies for each, laying 7 different sewer systems and 7 different electric grids. When the service is virtual, the same infrastructure limits don't materialize in the same way. We don't need to run new ISP lines to bring on a new platform. So while ISP are certainly more like classic utilities, websites and social platforms just aren't. >But mostly I wanted to counter the meme that "it's not censorship if it's a private company". Yes it is, when you have only one twitter and a handful of SM companies in total. It's not the ownership that matters, it's the ubiquity and the effect. Corporate censorship isn't a "free speech" problem. SM companies just aren't enough like a utility, they are not actually required to function in society (unlike electricity, and running water). Did you learn nothing from the battle over NetNeutrality?
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  > As such, we don't want 7 different companies for each, laying 7 different sewer systems and 7 different electric grids. I think decentralization is better way than building one big ISP controlled by the government. I live in a place (Utah), that has a non profit owned fiber infrastructure and leases it out to different ISPs, where you can even buy the dark fiber yourself for like $2500. I can choose from 10-15 ISPs with highly competitive prices and service. The ISPs can have whatever policies they want but the free market will take care of them pretty fast.
naravara 5y ago
> especially designed to encourage diversity of ideas. Exposure to diversity of ideas is not a problem on social media. What drowns out most ideas is actually threat of cyberbullying and internet mobs, being drowned out by bots, and algorithmic sorting that prioritizes controversial content over moderate voices. Only the last one is related to moderation/editorial choices by the company and it’s rarely framed as a free speech issue.
EL_Loco 5y ago
Except you can argue that we don't have only one twitter. We have many, and potentially thousands. I can fire up my own version of twitter in a couple of minutes. I (or my group, clan, subculture, whatever) can fire up my/our own facebook in minutes. OTOH I only have one electric power supplier to my home.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Some amount of regulation may help though, especially designed to encourage diversity of ideas I wonder if limited Section 512 reform is the answer [1]. Remove it for social media platforms over a certain size that sell ads. Create a safe harbour if they form an independent appeals commission, like the one Facebook did; but with teeth on enforcement, tightly-scoped but binding rulemaking powers, and rules about how its members are chosen. Company can flag and ban. Users can appeal. Commission can go to the courts to enforce its will or force discovery. (Maybe throw in a couple commission members elected by users, I don’t know.) [1] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyright-safe-harbor/ https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyr...

anamax 5y ago

FWIW, there is a precedent regarding shopping malls and the like. They are clearly private property, yet they must provide access for political activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

btreecat 5y ago

>History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Electric power, water, sewage, phone, internet access... each has its own specific history, times 170 countries. Not all identical, but the outcomes are pretty similar. They all require physical infrastructure to every house, to provide service capacity. As such, we don't want 7 different companies for each, laying 7 different sewer systems and 7 different electric grids. When the service is virtual, the same infrastructure limits don't materialize in the same way. We don't need to run new ISP lines to bring on a new platform. So while ISP are certainly more like classic utilities, websites and social platforms just aren't. >But mostly I wanted to counter the meme that "it's not censorship if it's a private company". Yes it is, when you have only one twitter and a handful of SM companies in total. It's not the ownership that matters, it's the ubiquity and the effect. Corporate censorship isn't a "free speech" problem. SM companies just aren't enough like a utility, they are not actually required to function in society (unlike electricity, and running water). Did you learn nothing from the battle over NetNeutrality?

oceanplexian 5y ago
> As such, we don't want 7 different companies for each, laying 7 different sewer systems and 7 different electric grids. I think decentralization is better way than building one big ISP controlled by the government. I live in a place (Utah), that has a non profit owned fiber infrastructure and leases it out to different ISPs, where you can even buy the dark fiber yourself for like $2500. I can choose from 10-15 ISPs with highly competitive prices and service. The ISPs can have whatever policies they want but the free market will take care of them pretty fast.

naravara 5y ago

> especially designed to encourage diversity of ideas. Exposure to diversity of ideas is not a problem on social media. What drowns out most ideas is actually threat of cyberbullying and internet mobs, being drowned out by bots, and algorithmic sorting that prioritizes controversial content over moderate voices. Only the last one is related to moderation/editorial choices by the company and it’s rarely framed as a free speech issue.

EL_Loco 5y ago

Except you can argue that we don't have only one twitter. We have many, and potentially thousands. I can fire up my own version of twitter in a couple of minutes. I (or my group, clan, subculture, whatever) can fire up my/our own facebook in minutes. OTOH I only have one electric power supplier to my home.