5 ms·

>Over the past 20 years content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms based on the tacit understanding that they

>Over the past 20 years content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms based on the tacit understanding that they would behave like content neutral common carriers. That's a strong assertion. Do you have any evidence to back that up? AIUI, the law governing this (at least in the US -- which is relevant since we're discussing US state laws being challenged in the courts) is the Communications Decency Act of 1996[0], with section 230[1] of that law being the pointy end of the stick WRT these particulars. I would also point out that the above serves as a front-end (in that it allows the courts to reject lawsuits misdirected at platforms, when they should be directed at the source of the speech) to the First Amendment[2]. Please detail where, exactly, any of the above supports the claim that "content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms based on the tacit understanding that they would behave like content neutral common carriers." Perhaps I'm missing something important (which is certainly possible) and I'd appreciate being enlightened. As such, I look forward to your response. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... Edit: Cleaned up prose. Additional Edit: I'm responding to [3] below as I am apparently rate limited and wanted to make sure I was clear in what I'm trying to say as I am pretty passionate about it: That's as may be, and I remember it fondly too. However, it wasn't by government or the law that "content creators were encouraged to use and invest in building an audience on these platforms..." Rather it was those platforms themselves. It would be easy for me to just say "sucker! you've been rooked!" and leave it at that. However, I'll (attempt to) respond substantively by saying that the surveillance capitalism[4] business model was still nascent and there were many more options for interpersonal interaction back then. It was inevitable that after the consolidation of "social" media that advertiser influence (since they're actually the customers -- not you) would be paramount to these platforms. And that's what drives the moderation/censorship folks are complaining about -- because advertisers don't want to be associated with anything controversial, they just want you to buy their products/services and (the advertisers and the platforms as well as various middlemen) collect (ala [4]) as much information about you as they can to aid in that process. [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39527216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39527216 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism

hamhock666 3y ago
I think to most people on the internet in the early 2000s, it was unthinkable that content on the major platforms would be censored based on political content. I don’t think there is any evidence for that, it’s more of a general feeling, and the fact that political censorship took off in the next decade. If these platforms had started out censoring particular political content, they would not have had the same mass adoption, or there may have been more free-speech competitors.
- sanity 3y ago
  Agreed, the overt political censorship didn't start until the mid-2010s, over a decade after today's tech giants solidified their dominant positions.
  - joshuamorton 3y ago
    I'd potentially reverse this: 'overt' political censorship didn't start until certain creators started to market their otherwise objectionable content as "political" as a way to bypass existing moderation policies.
  - numpad0 3y ago
    It's App Store. It all started with the App Store.
    - Zak 3y ago
      Advertisers are also considerably more picky about the content they're willing to be associated with, and considerably more influential with regard to the content most people see online than they were 20 years ago. Advertiser demands have produced rapid policy changes from the likes of Youtube and Reddit where other forms of pressure have had little effect.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  I agree with the person you're responding to, that the assertions you're making here don't seem to be supported by the evidence: As one of those people in question, it was never unthinkable. Even during the 2000's, it was common to ban people from MSN chatrooms. Before that, it was common to ban people from IRC channels, individual IRC servers, or even entire IRC networks. Did the GNAA have a right to "be platformed" indefinitely wherever they wanted? Also, the "censorship" in question more often deals with things like insults and other incivility, spamming, death threats, etc. Not mere "political" speech. I doubt many folks were banned from /r/SCOTUS for politely saying "I politically disagree with this ruling". We see via screenshots in the amicus the sort of stuff that was actually moderated. Indeed, the "censorship" which spawned these laws was the banning of a dude actively calling for violent insurrection against the government, and receiving it, and continuing to encourage it during the violent insurrection. That's the "political speech" the bill authors had in mind when drafting it. It's possible that the "censorship" in question is all that stopped the putsch from succeeding. One can see why fans of said dude and his insurrection were so upset by that.

hamhock666 3y ago

I think to most people on the internet in the early 2000s, it was unthinkable that content on the major platforms would be censored based on political content. I don’t think there is any evidence for that, it’s more of a general feeling, and the fact that political censorship took off in the next decade. If these platforms had started out censoring particular political content, they would not have had the same mass adoption, or there may have been more free-speech competitors.

sanity 3y ago
Agreed, the overt political censorship didn't start until the mid-2010s, over a decade after today's tech giants solidified their dominant positions.
- joshuamorton 3y ago
  I'd potentially reverse this: 'overt' political censorship didn't start until certain creators started to market their otherwise objectionable content as "political" as a way to bypass existing moderation policies.
- numpad0 3y ago
  It's App Store. It all started with the App Store.
  - Zak 3y ago
    Advertisers are also considerably more picky about the content they're willing to be associated with, and considerably more influential with regard to the content most people see online than they were 20 years ago. Advertiser demands have produced rapid policy changes from the likes of Youtube and Reddit where other forms of pressure have had little effect.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
I agree with the person you're responding to, that the assertions you're making here don't seem to be supported by the evidence: As one of those people in question, it was never unthinkable. Even during the 2000's, it was common to ban people from MSN chatrooms. Before that, it was common to ban people from IRC channels, individual IRC servers, or even entire IRC networks. Did the GNAA have a right to "be platformed" indefinitely wherever they wanted? Also, the "censorship" in question more often deals with things like insults and other incivility, spamming, death threats, etc. Not mere "political" speech. I doubt many folks were banned from /r/SCOTUS for politely saying "I politically disagree with this ruling". We see via screenshots in the amicus the sort of stuff that was actually moderated. Indeed, the "censorship" which spawned these laws was the banning of a dude actively calling for violent insurrection against the government, and receiving it, and continuing to encourage it during the violent insurrection. That's the "political speech" the bill authors had in mind when drafting it. It's possible that the "censorship" in question is all that stopped the putsch from succeeding. One can see why fans of said dude and his insurrection were so upset by that.