5 ms·

I don't think the platforms should be allowed to censor user content, if they also publish news well that's them expressing their own speech and choosing not to

I don't think the platforms should be allowed to censor user content, if they also publish news well that's them expressing their own speech and choosing not to publish a story or not which is fine. (apart from obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing). I do not like that 230 leaves this addition at the end "or otherwise objectionable" that is too steep a slope (I saw the Depp case and Ambers team found every word objectionable ;) "PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 88 (1980) (upholding a California law protecting the right to pamphleteer in privately owned shopping centers)" I think of the platform like a shopping center, once you open it up to the public to enter they can say whatever they want to anybody else in there and nobody can determine the subject or viewpoint they are allowed to hold or communicate. Once a platform opens up to user content I see it as the same thing, just because the reach is bigger and it is digital should not make any difference, when we are all retired our kids will send us to sleep in a capsule plugged into the metaverse and wired up to a nutrient supply drip like the matrix - do you want to be censored in there ? anyway that's my 2 cents. I am sure people smarter than me will see a lot wrong with this and happy to hear about it.

iamevn 4y ago
> I think of the platform like a shopping center, once you open it up to the public to enter they can say whatever they want to anybody else in there and nobody can determine the subject or viewpoint they are allowed to hold or communicate. People can say what they want and shopping centers are absolutely free to throw people the object to out. Walmart is not a public space. The parking lot of Nordstrom is not a public space. Twitter is not a public space. Why should Walmart be forced to serve someone spouting threats to other customers and staff? Why should Twitter be forced to broadcast users spouting threats and harassment towards their other users and their staff?
- destroy-2A 4y ago
  In case it was not clear, I agree with you that a shopping center should be able to remove people who are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing. In California at least[1] people are able to peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public. So the shopping center is not able to throw them out. I agree with this ruling and would like to see it applied Federally and to the digital platforms that allow the public to submit their own content. Like I said I am OK to remove content or people who are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing. but otherwise if you open your property or the platform to the public, you let them bring their freedom of expression also. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
  - saurik 4y ago
    Oh wow... I mean, many of these platforms operate out of California; maybe this is already applicable? (The issue in the case involved a shopping center but the premise of ruling on "taking" is way more general, and cuts to the core of the arguments people have against forcing people to host something. I have only spent a few seconds glancing at this so far, though.)
    - bcrosby95 4y ago
      I'm not sure any social media companies are running afoul of the Pruneyard decision. It isn't saying that you can say or do whatever you want in a shopping center. However, lots of people like to think "free speech" in the US starts and ends with the 1st amendment. This case shows that it doesn't.
andreareina 4y ago
Past a certain size online communities without moderation invariably turn into a cesspool. Prohibiting moderation will basically give people carte blanche to be terrible to each other and make such communities impossible. The dynamics of online and irl communities are different, you can't really compare them.
- snapplebobapple 4y ago
  I see this as actually an argument against communities being that large rather than an argument for moderation in most cases. To some extent moderation has tamped down the natural limiting of community size caused by aholes, which has fed the viral growth of these tech companies to the point where they have massively excessive market power and ability to influence vast swaths of the population, which is really unhealthy for a democracy. I haven't figured out what the solution is yet, but to me limiting aholes and allowing communities to grow far beyond where they would have without that problem doesn't seem like a solution that causes massive problems of its own.
  - jquery 4y ago
    So we can’t have large communities because right wingers have developed a persecution complex about not being able to say the N word? Edit: stop downvoting me, that’s censorship!! (/s)
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      That doesn't really contribute to the discussion and it is just wrong. What makes a placea cesspool is not the position someone is taking, but how they are taking that position and there are a small minority of people from all sides that cause this problem. It's more that I am not convinced at all that these large communities are a good thing and I am not surprised that there seems to be a natural feedback mechanism to limit their size given the extremely long time we have been social creatures. The market power issue isn't the only issue with them, it's just the one that annoys me the most as an economist.
ajross 4y ago
> I don't think the platforms should be allowed to censor user content, if [...] All these arguments end up having that complicated "if" clause, though. Because you have to squint very, very hard to find a way to understand this ruling as anything but disallowing content moderation. This very site. Hell, almost certainly this very thread, has copious dead comments suppressed precisely because of their undesired content. Accounts get banned here repeatedly. How is exactly is this legal in Texas? Yeah, you have to construct an "if". And let's be honest, in almost all cases that "if" is going to be tantamount to "they are moderating content I disagree with". And that's how you can tell this is a terrible ruling. It grants the government broad ability to disallow moderation without giving anyone a clear set of rules for which moderation is acceptable beyond "big tech bad".
- ttybird2 4y ago
  This is not true. You can verify it by setting showdead to yes in your profile. Such comments are not that common.
  - ajross 4y ago
    > This is not true. You can verify it by setting showdead to yes in your profile. Such comments are not that common. Are you sure you're using it right? I count NINE "[dead]" comments in the topic you commented on, within half an hour of you making that comment. I mean, sorry, but that is just laughably wrong. Everything even remotely political here gets moderated heavily, both by community flagging and site moderators.
    - ttybird2 4y ago
      I just realized that I was not logged in when I checked, that was silly of me, sorry.

iamevn 4y ago

> I think of the platform like a shopping center, once you open it up to the public to enter they can say whatever they want to anybody else in there and nobody can determine the subject or viewpoint they are allowed to hold or communicate. People can say what they want and shopping centers are absolutely free to throw people the object to out. Walmart is not a public space. The parking lot of Nordstrom is not a public space. Twitter is not a public space. Why should Walmart be forced to serve someone spouting threats to other customers and staff? Why should Twitter be forced to broadcast users spouting threats and harassment towards their other users and their staff?

destroy-2A 4y ago
In case it was not clear, I agree with you that a shopping center should be able to remove people who are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing. In California at least[1] people are able to peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public. So the shopping center is not able to throw them out. I agree with this ruling and would like to see it applied Federally and to the digital platforms that allow the public to submit their own content. Like I said I am OK to remove content or people who are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing. but otherwise if you open your property or the platform to the public, you let them bring their freedom of expression also. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
- saurik 4y ago
  Oh wow... I mean, many of these platforms operate out of California; maybe this is already applicable? (The issue in the case involved a shopping center but the premise of ruling on "taking" is way more general, and cuts to the core of the arguments people have against forcing people to host something. I have only spent a few seconds glancing at this so far, though.)
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
    I'm not sure any social media companies are running afoul of the Pruneyard decision. It isn't saying that you can say or do whatever you want in a shopping center. However, lots of people like to think "free speech" in the US starts and ends with the 1st amendment. This case shows that it doesn't.

andreareina 4y ago

Past a certain size online communities without moderation invariably turn into a cesspool. Prohibiting moderation will basically give people carte blanche to be terrible to each other and make such communities impossible. The dynamics of online and irl communities are different, you can't really compare them.

snapplebobapple 4y ago
I see this as actually an argument against communities being that large rather than an argument for moderation in most cases. To some extent moderation has tamped down the natural limiting of community size caused by aholes, which has fed the viral growth of these tech companies to the point where they have massively excessive market power and ability to influence vast swaths of the population, which is really unhealthy for a democracy. I haven't figured out what the solution is yet, but to me limiting aholes and allowing communities to grow far beyond where they would have without that problem doesn't seem like a solution that causes massive problems of its own.
- jquery 4y ago
  So we can’t have large communities because right wingers have developed a persecution complex about not being able to say the N word? Edit: stop downvoting me, that’s censorship!! (/s)
  - snapplebobapple 4y ago
    That doesn't really contribute to the discussion and it is just wrong. What makes a placea cesspool is not the position someone is taking, but how they are taking that position and there are a small minority of people from all sides that cause this problem. It's more that I am not convinced at all that these large communities are a good thing and I am not surprised that there seems to be a natural feedback mechanism to limit their size given the extremely long time we have been social creatures. The market power issue isn't the only issue with them, it's just the one that annoys me the most as an economist.

ajross 4y ago

> I don't think the platforms should be allowed to censor user content, if [...] All these arguments end up having that complicated "if" clause, though. Because you have to squint very, very hard to find a way to understand this ruling as anything but disallowing content moderation. This very site. Hell, almost certainly this very thread, has copious dead comments suppressed precisely because of their undesired content. Accounts get banned here repeatedly. How is exactly is this legal in Texas? Yeah, you have to construct an "if". And let's be honest, in almost all cases that "if" is going to be tantamount to "they are moderating content I disagree with". And that's how you can tell this is a terrible ruling. It grants the government broad ability to disallow moderation without giving anyone a clear set of rules for which moderation is acceptable beyond "big tech bad".

ttybird2 4y ago
This is not true. You can verify it by setting showdead to yes in your profile. Such comments are not that common.
- ajross 4y ago
  > This is not true. You can verify it by setting showdead to yes in your profile. Such comments are not that common. Are you sure you're using it right? I count NINE "[dead]" comments in the topic you commented on, within half an hour of you making that comment. I mean, sorry, but that is just laughably wrong. Everything even remotely political here gets moderated heavily, both by community flagging and site moderators.
  - ttybird2 4y ago
    I just realized that I was not logged in when I checked, that was silly of me, sorry.