5 ms·

I think that censorship should be expressly limited based on size and usage of 230 protections. ex: if you have 10+ million users and you want to cite section

I think that censorship should be expressly limited based on size and usage of 230 protections. ex: if you have 10+ million users and you want to cite section 230 protections, you may not censor protected speech, but maybe allow users to opt-in to a "censored" feed, or otherwise limited such as for minors. I'm mixed, but I don't think companies should have 230 protection AND be able to make express publisher decisions on editorializing content.

SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
I think this is one of those things that only ever makes sense in the abstract. How would this rule apply to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy? Would it make sense to tell Prodigy that they'll be immune from defamation suits if only they agree to make their offensive language monitoring opt-in and publish a new code of conduct permitting racial slurs?
- tracker1 8mo ago
  I'm honestly not sure... it could also backfire with intentional social groups... such as someone created a social network expressly for progressives or conservatives, where repeated contrarian rhetoric is simply disallowed (for good or bad), for people who want to live in their bubbles, like MSNow. (last comment regarding MS Now is meant for humor)
digiown 8mo ago
I'm not sure that would work. How about spam or adverts? That's protected speech. And downranking based on viewpoint is not any different from censoring. Yeah you can say X but no one will see it. I can see potentially requiring platforms to moderate in a "viewpoint neutral" way, though, which only applies if you have ~5% of potential customer base as users. It would at least create a diseconomy of scale and discourage centralization.
- TexanFeller 8mo ago
  Sounds like you’re talking about the presumed free speech rights of corporations, which is part of this debate. I think corporations should have much more limited speech than an actual person and the concept of corporate personhood in general needs to be walked back significantly. Yes it’s important for news organization and such to have unrestricted speech, but that seems solvable by keeping them in a separate category and excluding corps that engage in other lines of business. I don’t want say Google to be have full censorship and editorial privileges just because one of their many products surfaces news.
  - digiown 8mo ago
    I can spam or send misinformation here just fine without being a corporation. And it's legal speech. Should platforms not be able to moderate this? > news organization and such to have unrestricted speech [...] by keeping them in a separate category and excluding corps This is an misunderstanding of "freedom of the press". The "press" is a reference to the printing press as a device itself. News organizations (which are usually for profit) have the exact same rights to free speech as anyone else. The natural analogy is printers and the right to publish information online.
nradov 8mo ago
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that Congress could consider extending "Common Carrier" legislation to cover social media networks. I'm not convinced that would be an improvement over the current situation but it's an interesting idea. The telephone company doesn't censor which topics I can discuss in phone calls so perhaps other communication technologies should work in a similar way? https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...
- vel0city 8mo ago
  This completely ignores the history of why common carrier regulations were originally implemented. Common carriers had such regulation on them because their infrastructure was a natural monopoly. The lone train line through the town. The single telegraph and telephone operator. The only trucking company operating that route. It's not clear to me we're at the point that Facebook is the only real way for us to talk online. It seems like there's a lot of easy to access competition in this space.
  - digiown 8mo ago
    Facebook+Instagram+Whatsapp/iMessage is a "natural monopoly" because of their network effect, just like the older monopolies. You can run a telephone cable to your neighbor, but good luck reaching anyone else. I can run a chat server to talk with a few specific friends too in the same way, but will you be able to use it to talk to a random company/store/stranger? > It seems like there's a lot of easy to access competition in this space. If I give you the money to buy and operate the required amount of servers and a couple developers, will you be able to launch a Facebook competitor in the next year? I doubt so. Fundamentally the idea is that you ought to be able to participate in society without undue hardship solely by the whim of the (power,phone,water,communications) company. I don't think it is that unreasonable to regulate Facebook in that sense. Also a lot of government agencies themselves basically only post up to date information on Facebook/Twitter. Do you think I should have to go through a hostile third party just to receive information from the government?

SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago

I think this is one of those things that only ever makes sense in the abstract. How would this rule apply to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy? Would it make sense to tell Prodigy that they'll be immune from defamation suits if only they agree to make their offensive language monitoring opt-in and publish a new code of conduct permitting racial slurs?

tracker1 8mo ago
I'm honestly not sure... it could also backfire with intentional social groups... such as someone created a social network expressly for progressives or conservatives, where repeated contrarian rhetoric is simply disallowed (for good or bad), for people who want to live in their bubbles, like MSNow. (last comment regarding MS Now is meant for humor)

digiown 8mo ago

I'm not sure that would work. How about spam or adverts? That's protected speech. And downranking based on viewpoint is not any different from censoring. Yeah you can say X but no one will see it. I can see potentially requiring platforms to moderate in a "viewpoint neutral" way, though, which only applies if you have ~5% of potential customer base as users. It would at least create a diseconomy of scale and discourage centralization.

TexanFeller 8mo ago
Sounds like you’re talking about the presumed free speech rights of corporations, which is part of this debate. I think corporations should have much more limited speech than an actual person and the concept of corporate personhood in general needs to be walked back significantly. Yes it’s important for news organization and such to have unrestricted speech, but that seems solvable by keeping them in a separate category and excluding corps that engage in other lines of business. I don’t want say Google to be have full censorship and editorial privileges just because one of their many products surfaces news.
- digiown 8mo ago
  I can spam or send misinformation here just fine without being a corporation. And it's legal speech. Should platforms not be able to moderate this? > news organization and such to have unrestricted speech [...] by keeping them in a separate category and excluding corps This is an misunderstanding of "freedom of the press". The "press" is a reference to the printing press as a device itself. News organizations (which are usually for profit) have the exact same rights to free speech as anyone else. The natural analogy is printers and the right to publish information online.

nradov 8mo ago

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that Congress could consider extending "Common Carrier" legislation to cover social media networks. I'm not convinced that would be an improvement over the current situation but it's an interesting idea. The telephone company doesn't censor which topics I can discuss in phone calls so perhaps other communication technologies should work in a similar way? https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...

vel0city 8mo ago
This completely ignores the history of why common carrier regulations were originally implemented. Common carriers had such regulation on them because their infrastructure was a natural monopoly. The lone train line through the town. The single telegraph and telephone operator. The only trucking company operating that route. It's not clear to me we're at the point that Facebook is the only real way for us to talk online. It seems like there's a lot of easy to access competition in this space.
- digiown 8mo ago
  Facebook+Instagram+Whatsapp/iMessage is a "natural monopoly" because of their network effect, just like the older monopolies. You can run a telephone cable to your neighbor, but good luck reaching anyone else. I can run a chat server to talk with a few specific friends too in the same way, but will you be able to use it to talk to a random company/store/stranger? > It seems like there's a lot of easy to access competition in this space. If I give you the money to buy and operate the required amount of servers and a couple developers, will you be able to launch a Facebook competitor in the next year? I doubt so. Fundamentally the idea is that you ought to be able to participate in society without undue hardship solely by the whim of the (power,phone,water,communications) company. I don't think it is that unreasonable to regulate Facebook in that sense. Also a lot of government agencies themselves basically only post up to date information on Facebook/Twitter. Do you think I should have to go through a hostile third party just to receive information from the government?