4 ms·

There is a problem of agency here. Assuming that we are talking about platform of user-generated content, should the users be punished by what they post? The k

There is a problem of agency here. Assuming that we are talking about platform of user-generated content, should the users be punished by what they post? The kind of punishment can do the government is different from what a platform can do, and somewhat they want to feel free to express themselves. This are factors taken into account by users at making decisions. In the other hand, what the platform does (through algorithms, weights, etc) at selecting, prioritizing and making visible content by users and users themselves is something happening at platform level. There the government may have something to do. And here we are talking about the platform decisions. There is a middle ground on coordinating/playing with the algorithms to make your content visible by users or groups that control in a way or another many users accounts. There might be some government and platform involvement in this case.

_heimdall 1y ago
> should the users be punished by what they post? What kind of punishment exactly? If governments punish users for content, assuming the content isn't clearly illegal, that's government censorship and may be a free speech violation depending on jurisdiction. Platforms censoring or prioritizing content is a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform. I'm not sure that's punishment at all, people don't have to post there and there's no use of force or detention being threatened.
- chii 1y ago
  > a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly, so a platform that turned itself into a public square (and extracting rents from doing so) means they get to control a narrative displayed in public (presumably suitable to their agenda). And there's no secondary public square due to the network effect.
  - philipkglass 1y ago
    what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly Which one platform for user generated content do you think holds the natural monopoly? I agree that network effects limit competition, absent government intervention, but among my acquaintances people are using: - Discord - Snapchat - Instagram - TikTok - Bluesky - YouTube - Twitter/X - Reddit I think that enforcing anti-trust would be enough to keep any one platform or corporate owner from monopolizing public discourse.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    Except the "public square" thing isn't real. You do not get to say whatever you want in the local pub, the local library, the local mall, the local grocery store (even if it is the only one!) or the local town hall! You can be trespassed explicitly for your speech in any of them, or even for no reason. The only grocery store in town can say "You aren't allowed here anymore because fuck you", and as long as you cannot prove in court that they actually banned you for being a protected class, no more groceries for you! The closest we have is "common carrier" concepts. The electric company has to serve even the nazis. So did the telephone company. I think the railroads were required to serve all comers? Each of those were done for the purpose of encouraging a functioning market, actions taken against organizations that you cannot build competitors to, since the rights of way they use are basically gone and would cost absurd prices to replace the infrastructure for even a single customer. None of this is true for Facebook or Twitter. Anyone can spin up a replacement in a day for dirt cheap, and can self host. The internet was originally built from people self hosting, and it's only gotten easier and cheaper, so the "But you can't replace it" argument has never held water. If you are upset that a lot of internet companies are megacorps and don't have competition and that self hosting would leave you kind of lonely, I agree! Let's break up these absurdly stupid companies. Don't claim to be advocating for "freedom of speech" if what you are actually advocating for is "I want to compel speech that I agree with from everyone else" There is STILL no day to day requirement to be on facebook or youtube or whatever. There are a glut of youtube replacements springing up, because the "serving video on the internet is hard and expensive" narrative is mostly wrong, and because Youtube sucks for anyone who isn't Mr Beast, and the style of content they want that drives maximum profit.

_heimdall 1y ago

> should the users be punished by what they post? What kind of punishment exactly? If governments punish users for content, assuming the content isn't clearly illegal, that's government censorship and may be a free speech violation depending on jurisdiction. Platforms censoring or prioritizing content is a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform. I'm not sure that's punishment at all, people don't have to post there and there's no use of force or detention being threatened.

chii 1y ago
> a private entity enforcing rules for what they're willing to host and distribute on the platform what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly, so a platform that turned itself into a public square (and extracting rents from doing so) means they get to control a narrative displayed in public (presumably suitable to their agenda). And there's no secondary public square due to the network effect.
- philipkglass 1y ago
  what becomes of the public square under this doctrine tho? There cannot be more than one public square, as it's a natural monopoly Which one platform for user generated content do you think holds the natural monopoly? I agree that network effects limit competition, absent government intervention, but among my acquaintances people are using: - Discord - Snapchat - Instagram - TikTok - Bluesky - YouTube - Twitter/X - Reddit I think that enforcing anti-trust would be enough to keep any one platform or corporate owner from monopolizing public discourse.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  Except the "public square" thing isn't real. You do not get to say whatever you want in the local pub, the local library, the local mall, the local grocery store (even if it is the only one!) or the local town hall! You can be trespassed explicitly for your speech in any of them, or even for no reason. The only grocery store in town can say "You aren't allowed here anymore because fuck you", and as long as you cannot prove in court that they actually banned you for being a protected class, no more groceries for you! The closest we have is "common carrier" concepts. The electric company has to serve even the nazis. So did the telephone company. I think the railroads were required to serve all comers? Each of those were done for the purpose of encouraging a functioning market, actions taken against organizations that you cannot build competitors to, since the rights of way they use are basically gone and would cost absurd prices to replace the infrastructure for even a single customer. None of this is true for Facebook or Twitter. Anyone can spin up a replacement in a day for dirt cheap, and can self host. The internet was originally built from people self hosting, and it's only gotten easier and cheaper, so the "But you can't replace it" argument has never held water. If you are upset that a lot of internet companies are megacorps and don't have competition and that self hosting would leave you kind of lonely, I agree! Let's break up these absurdly stupid companies. Don't claim to be advocating for "freedom of speech" if what you are actually advocating for is "I want to compel speech that I agree with from everyone else" There is STILL no day to day requirement to be on facebook or youtube or whatever. There are a glut of youtube replacements springing up, because the "serving video on the internet is hard and expensive" narrative is mostly wrong, and because Youtube sucks for anyone who isn't Mr Beast, and the style of content they want that drives maximum profit.