5 ms·

Even if we ignore the debate about whether a private enterprise should be forced to pay for speech they do not want, the bill is bad law. Who do they define as

by IX-103 4y ago

Even if we ignore the debate about whether a private enterprise should be forced to pay for speech they do not want, the bill is bad law. Who do they define as a candidate? If I'm running for student council would it apply to me? What requirements are there? Similarly, who is a "journalist"? Anyone can declare they are one. Finally, what constitutes post-prioritization? If I search for something, then ideally posts relevant to what I searched for would be prioritized in results, does this count as "shadow banning"? In any list there can only be one element that is first. Are the others "shadow banned"? Now let's look at this and see if the circumstances justify the government seizing the right of the social media hosting company to determine what content they want to serve on their website. - Does the company have a natural Monopoly due to rights given to them by the public (such as the right of way for cable/equipment installation enjoyed by other common carriers)? No. These companies enjoy no such special privileges. - Is there a substantial cost for a competitor to enter the market? No. Software and server infrastructure are cheap compared to costs incurred to existing common carriers. Then I do not see a justification for the government to rescind the rights of the social network operators in this way.

specialist 4y ago
Any one who files to be a candidate is a candidate. Any one who publishes their work, cites their sources, and signs their (real) name is a journalist. I don't have the heart to respond to the rest of your objections.
- ben_w 4y ago
  > Any one who files to be a candidate is a candidate OK, but this can then be misused for other causes — for example, in the UK there is a deposit that general election candidates have to pay, which IIRC was introduced because too many people kept filing to be candidates because that was a way to get out of a legal obligation (draft, I think). I expect the same here. Is anyone illegible to file for candidacy? Is this exactly the same dividing line you want between the tweeters and the tweet-nots? (I am amused by the idea of Trump social media site being forced to host the literal Communist Party USA candidates, but that's a different matter). > Any one who publishes their work, cites their sources, and signs their (real) name is a journalist. This definition is so broad as to include me. Thanks, I guess, but I don't think I warrant that status.
  - specialist 4y ago
    Filing restrictions vary. Like no felons, under active investigation, lives within same jurisdiction. We definitely have too many candidates. In practice, other filters, rightly or wrongly, cull the herd to only "serious candidates". Basically, ability to raise money and get endorsements. If you squint, they both kinda look like forms of social proof. The political parties used to be the filter, but now they're impotent. For better or worse. -- > I don't think I warrant that status. Maybe not. But name some "journalists" in corporate media who have your credibility and authenticity. By my definition, you are far more of a journalist than most talking heads and pundits can even claim to be. (Whereas anonymous coward me is not.) A "professional journalist" also has the resources to do fact checking and corrections (errata). Most of the news and analysis I consume today comes from podcasts, bloggers, and books. That's not great. Using Manufacturing Consent's thesis of media filters, because I don't have another model, it comes down to who is "in charge". Right now, our society's choices for mass news are corporate propaganda and corporate recommenders (algorithmic hate machines). Some people can afford to buy high quality bespoke news. Some are quirky or crazy enough (news junkies) to keep their own ledger (bozo list). There are some exceptions. HN, metafilter, user groups (aka special interest groups) like some subreddits and ravelry.org, can also provide higher signal to noise over a longer time frame. -- Thanks for humoring me and reading this far. I write to understand and it helps me to go thru the effort.
webmobdev 4y ago
> Who do they define as a candidate? A political candidate is one who is a member of a political party and is running for a public office or has already been elected to such offices in the past. (Yes, I am discounting independent candidates as they are a minor aberration that, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed in mature democracies). Whether the democratic system is presidential or parliamentary, political parties are one of the common institutions and base political units that are part of a democratic political system. > If I'm running for student council would it apply to me? No, since it is not a public office. This law is targeted to protect the free speech rights and political views of active politicians and elected representatives. For example, Twitter, under pressure from the current right-wing government of India deliberately tried to sabotage the social media outreach of an elected Member of Parliament and an opposition leader: “I want to bring your attention to what I believe is Twitter’s unwitting complicity in curbing free and fair speech in India,” Mr. Gandhi wrote in the letter to the Twitter chief executive, Parag Agrawal. “I have been reliably, albeit discreetly, informed by people at Twitter India that they are under immense pressure by the government to silence my voice.” (Source: India’s Rahul Gandhi Says His Twitter Following Was Squashed by Modi Government - https://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-opposition-figure-rahul-gandhi-says-his-twitter-following-was-restricted-11643207184 https://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-opposition-figure-rahul-... ). The proposed laws can actually protect tech platforms from this kind of government pressure too, which should be welcomed by us. > Similarly, who is a "journalist"? Anyone can declare they are one. Just like shouting "I declare bankruptcy" doesn't activate bankruptcy laws in your favour, "declaring" yourself a journalist doesn't make you a journalist in most countries.
pseingatl 4y ago
We already know that anyone with a blog is a journalist.
webmobdev 4y ago
> Now let's look at this and see if the circumstances justify the government seizing the right of the social media hosting company to determine what content they want to serve on their website. If social media platforms want that right, like news media platforms, they have to hire real editors and agree to be liable for the information they publish and disseminate. Why should social media platforms get an exception to this but news media platform on print, TV or radio be bound by extra restrictions (liability)? > Is there a substantial cost for a competitor to enter the market? No. Software and server infrastructure are cheap compared to costs incurred to existing common carriers. Yes, there is the "network effect" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect ) which is a huge barrier for any new competitor to overcome. One way to remove this barrier and provide a more level playing field would be to create and enforce a standard that would foster connection and communication between all such social network platforms. Do you think the tech companies will allow this?

by IX-103 4y ago

specialist 4y ago

Any one who files to be a candidate is a candidate. Any one who publishes their work, cites their sources, and signs their (real) name is a journalist. I don't have the heart to respond to the rest of your objections.

ben_w 4y ago
> Any one who files to be a candidate is a candidate OK, but this can then be misused for other causes — for example, in the UK there is a deposit that general election candidates have to pay, which IIRC was introduced because too many people kept filing to be candidates because that was a way to get out of a legal obligation (draft, I think). I expect the same here. Is anyone illegible to file for candidacy? Is this exactly the same dividing line you want between the tweeters and the tweet-nots? (I am amused by the idea of Trump social media site being forced to host the literal Communist Party USA candidates, but that's a different matter). > Any one who publishes their work, cites their sources, and signs their (real) name is a journalist. This definition is so broad as to include me. Thanks, I guess, but I don't think I warrant that status.
- specialist 4y ago
  Filing restrictions vary. Like no felons, under active investigation, lives within same jurisdiction. We definitely have too many candidates. In practice, other filters, rightly or wrongly, cull the herd to only "serious candidates". Basically, ability to raise money and get endorsements. If you squint, they both kinda look like forms of social proof. The political parties used to be the filter, but now they're impotent. For better or worse. -- > I don't think I warrant that status. Maybe not. But name some "journalists" in corporate media who have your credibility and authenticity. By my definition, you are far more of a journalist than most talking heads and pundits can even claim to be. (Whereas anonymous coward me is not.) A "professional journalist" also has the resources to do fact checking and corrections (errata). Most of the news and analysis I consume today comes from podcasts, bloggers, and books. That's not great. Using Manufacturing Consent's thesis of media filters, because I don't have another model, it comes down to who is "in charge". Right now, our society's choices for mass news are corporate propaganda and corporate recommenders (algorithmic hate machines). Some people can afford to buy high quality bespoke news. Some are quirky or crazy enough (news junkies) to keep their own ledger (bozo list). There are some exceptions. HN, metafilter, user groups (aka special interest groups) like some subreddits and ravelry.org, can also provide higher signal to noise over a longer time frame. -- Thanks for humoring me and reading this far. I write to understand and it helps me to go thru the effort.

webmobdev 4y ago

> Who do they define as a candidate? A political candidate is one who is a member of a political party and is running for a public office or has already been elected to such offices in the past. (Yes, I am discounting independent candidates as they are a minor aberration that, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed in mature democracies). Whether the democratic system is presidential or parliamentary, political parties are one of the common institutions and base political units that are part of a democratic political system. > If I'm running for student council would it apply to me? No, since it is not a public office. This law is targeted to protect the free speech rights and political views of active politicians and elected representatives. For example, Twitter, under pressure from the current right-wing government of India deliberately tried to sabotage the social media outreach of an elected Member of Parliament and an opposition leader: “I want to bring your attention to what I believe is Twitter’s unwitting complicity in curbing free and fair speech in India,” Mr. Gandhi wrote in the letter to the Twitter chief executive, Parag Agrawal. “I have been reliably, albeit discreetly, informed by people at Twitter India that they are under immense pressure by the government to silence my voice.” (Source: India’s Rahul Gandhi Says His Twitter Following Was Squashed by Modi Government - https://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-opposition-figure-rahul-gandhi-says-his-twitter-following-was-restricted-11643207184 https://www.wsj.com/articles/indian-opposition-figure-rahul-... ). The proposed laws can actually protect tech platforms from this kind of government pressure too, which should be welcomed by us. > Similarly, who is a "journalist"? Anyone can declare they are one. Just like shouting "I declare bankruptcy" doesn't activate bankruptcy laws in your favour, "declaring" yourself a journalist doesn't make you a journalist in most countries.

pseingatl 4y ago

We already know that anyone with a blog is a journalist.

webmobdev 4y ago

> Now let's look at this and see if the circumstances justify the government seizing the right of the social media hosting company to determine what content they want to serve on their website. If social media platforms want that right, like news media platforms, they have to hire real editors and agree to be liable for the information they publish and disseminate. Why should social media platforms get an exception to this but news media platform on print, TV or radio be bound by extra restrictions (liability)? > Is there a substantial cost for a competitor to enter the market? No. Software and server infrastructure are cheap compared to costs incurred to existing common carriers. Yes, there is the "network effect" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect ) which is a huge barrier for any new competitor to overcome. One way to remove this barrier and provide a more level playing field would be to create and enforce a standard that would foster connection and communication between all such social network platforms. Do you think the tech companies will allow this?