5 ms·

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 th

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
  > 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. The definition and purpose of a "common carrier" has no relation to monopoly status whatsoever, whether you're referring to English common law (the concept dates back to the 1600s), or in its modern US incarnations. Conceptually, the principle of common carriage is that: (1) There are beneficial services that private entities can only feasibly provide if they are granted special privileges generally reserved by the government. (2) Such services, in exchange for being granted those privileges at a cost to the public, must also serve the public. > Are you saying that we get to dictate to internet companies exactly what their services entail? Doesn't sound quite right to me. "Telecommunications providers" — landline and cellular telephone companies — are already classified as common carriers under our telecommunication laws. We don't dictate exactly what their services entail. ISPs are not classified as "telecommunications providers", mainly because ISPs have spent a lot of money and lobbied very, very hard over the past three decades to avoid exactly that outcome. They convinced Congress to grant them the privileges without the responsibilities. Net neutrality was just a skirmish in this very long-running war. > 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. Yes, absolutely. If you do not want to operate as a common carrier — that is, on a non-discriminatory basis, neutral as to use and user — then you do not get the special privileges granted by the government to common carriers serving the public interest. Websites will be forced to either: (1) Take responsibility for their content posted by their users — including the spread of libel, disinformation, harassment, doxing, threats, et al, or (2) Serve the public square, neutral as to use and user, in exchange for the privilege of limited liability for what they publish.

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
> 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. The definition and purpose of a "common carrier" has no relation to monopoly status whatsoever, whether you're referring to English common law (the concept dates back to the 1600s), or in its modern US incarnations. Conceptually, the principle of common carriage is that: (1) There are beneficial services that private entities can only feasibly provide if they are granted special privileges generally reserved by the government. (2) Such services, in exchange for being granted those privileges at a cost to the public, must also serve the public. > Are you saying that we get to dictate to internet companies exactly what their services entail? Doesn't sound quite right to me. "Telecommunications providers" — landline and cellular telephone companies — are already classified as common carriers under our telecommunication laws. We don't dictate exactly what their services entail. ISPs are not classified as "telecommunications providers", mainly because ISPs have spent a lot of money and lobbied very, very hard over the past three decades to avoid exactly that outcome. They convinced Congress to grant them the privileges without the responsibilities. Net neutrality was just a skirmish in this very long-running war. > 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. Yes, absolutely. If you do not want to operate as a common carrier — that is, on a non-discriminatory basis, neutral as to use and user — then you do not get the special privileges granted by the government to common carriers serving the public interest. Websites will be forced to either: (1) Take responsibility for their content posted by their users — including the spread of libel, disinformation, harassment, doxing, threats, et al, or (2) Serve the public square, neutral as to use and user, in exchange for the privilege of limited liability for what they publish.