4 ms·

> Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. I'm fine with allowing them to censor speech if they also are liable for the speech they do choose t

> Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. I'm fine with allowing them to censor speech if they also are liable for the speech they do choose to publish, just like any other individual, newspaper, or publisher would be. Platforms cannot simultaneously claim that: (1) They are mere conduits for other people's speech, and thus, deserve to be shielded from any liability for what they publish (2) What they publish is their own speech, and thus, their publication choices should be considered protected expression under the first amendment.

mpalmer 4y ago
I was under the impression that the law isn't quite settled on this point. I certainly am not going to pretend to understand the legal interests at play in this question. Why exactly should I be suing YouTube for hosting someone else's libel?
- catiopatio 4y ago
  The law is very settled when it comes to publishers and common carriers, and has been for very long time. If Fox News publishes libel, they can’t just claim that they’re hosting someone else’s reporting. If a telecommunications provider publishes someone’s libel, they are shielded from liability as a common carrier. In exchange, however, they must provide their services non-discriminatorily to the public. If FedEx delivers controlled substances as part of their usual course of business, they are also shielded from liability as a common carrier, but the same responsibility to serve the general public applies. YouTube and other “interactive computer services”, however, were granted an explicit privileged shield from liability by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, with none of the responsibilities historically associated with that privilege. Without the CDA, Twitter wouldn’t exist; they’d have been sued into oblivion long ago. Instead of solving that problem by extending our well-understood common carrier framework to “interactive computer services”, we granted them a massive privilege and asked for nothing in return.
  - mpalmer 4y ago
    > they must provide their services non-discriminatorily to the public Providing service without discriminating... how does holding all users accountable to the same terms of service not satisfy that requirement? I don't know of any cases where a person kicked off their ISP for torrenting subsequently denounced the ISP as a "publisher". Are you saying that we get to dictate to internet companies exactly what their services entail? Doesn't sound quite right to me. The idea that a single website is a common carrier seems to stretch the definition to the breaking point. It ignores the general understanding that common carrier designations tend to occur in situations involving natural monopolies. A website decides what information it takes in, stores, displays, and transfers. No one's rights are violated when they take information from you but don't display it anywhere else. You are not entitled to an audience on their infrastructure; go find a website who shares your ideas about how to operate. Really, I'm curious if you think making websites liable for the content their users post will actually further the goals of free expression on the Internet. When internet giants suddenly have a huge incentive to withhold content that powerful interests might sue over, what sort of platform for free expression do you think social media will end up becoming?
    - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
      "Anyone may use our platform so long as they do not post messages speaking positively about homosexuality".
      - mpalmer 4y ago
        Not exactly clear on your point. Is it to say that anyone who opposes limiting a platform's power to control speech on its services is implicitly supporting this bad policy? If so you might as well complain that the federal government still hasn't outlawed disliking gay people. At any rate, this would be a stupid and abhorrent policy which would nonetheless not discriminate in the sense described by federal law. The marketplace of ideas being what it is, I'm not sure what kind of foothold such a site would be able to get, having such a stupid policy.
    - catiopatio 4y ago
MarkPNeyer 4y ago
Exactly. They want it both ways. If you are algorithmically boosting some views and deleting others, now it’s your speech and you should be liable.

mpalmer 4y ago

I was under the impression that the law isn't quite settled on this point. I certainly am not going to pretend to understand the legal interests at play in this question. Why exactly should I be suing YouTube for hosting someone else's libel?

catiopatio 4y ago
The law is very settled when it comes to publishers and common carriers, and has been for very long time. If Fox News publishes libel, they can’t just claim that they’re hosting someone else’s reporting. If a telecommunications provider publishes someone’s libel, they are shielded from liability as a common carrier. In exchange, however, they must provide their services non-discriminatorily to the public. If FedEx delivers controlled substances as part of their usual course of business, they are also shielded from liability as a common carrier, but the same responsibility to serve the general public applies. YouTube and other “interactive computer services”, however, were granted an explicit privileged shield from liability by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, with none of the responsibilities historically associated with that privilege. Without the CDA, Twitter wouldn’t exist; they’d have been sued into oblivion long ago. Instead of solving that problem by extending our well-understood common carrier framework to “interactive computer services”, we granted them a massive privilege and asked for nothing in return.
- mpalmer 4y ago
  > they must provide their services non-discriminatorily to the public Providing service without discriminating... how does holding all users accountable to the same terms of service not satisfy that requirement? I don't know of any cases where a person kicked off their ISP for torrenting subsequently denounced the ISP as a "publisher". Are you saying that we get to dictate to internet companies exactly what their services entail? Doesn't sound quite right to me. The idea that a single website is a common carrier seems to stretch the definition to the breaking point. It ignores the general understanding that common carrier designations tend to occur in situations involving natural monopolies. A website decides what information it takes in, stores, displays, and transfers. No one's rights are violated when they take information from you but don't display it anywhere else. You are not entitled to an audience on their infrastructure; go find a website who shares your ideas about how to operate. Really, I'm curious if you think making websites liable for the content their users post will actually further the goals of free expression on the Internet. When internet giants suddenly have a huge incentive to withhold content that powerful interests might sue over, what sort of platform for free expression do you think social media will end up becoming?
  - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
    "Anyone may use our platform so long as they do not post messages speaking positively about homosexuality".
    - mpalmer 4y ago
      Not exactly clear on your point. Is it to say that anyone who opposes limiting a platform's power to control speech on its services is implicitly supporting this bad policy? If so you might as well complain that the federal government still hasn't outlawed disliking gay people. At any rate, this would be a stupid and abhorrent policy which would nonetheless not discriminate in the sense described by federal law. The marketplace of ideas being what it is, I'm not sure what kind of foothold such a site would be able to get, having such a stupid policy.
  - catiopatio 4y ago

MarkPNeyer 4y ago

Exactly. They want it both ways. If you are algorithmically boosting some views and deleting others, now it’s your speech and you should be liable.