So if I have an online magazine, I can't choose what kinds of authors I want to invite? How is that any different than reddit deciding what communities to have/not have...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
Or take it from Mike Masnick:
> If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher"
> I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you've likely heard this from someone else -- perhaps even someone respected -- but it's just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else.
> To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
The discussion is not about whether or not social media companies have Section 230 protection but whether or not they should have it.
In an ideal world we repeal Section 230 and the US government provides, free of charge, a small digital space for each citizen to say whatever they want in the context of free speech. There's no reason we should allow these tech monopolies to exist and maintain their fiefdoms of extrajudicial decisions about what is or isn't considered protected speech. If we want to assert that digital communication is a protected right, there's no other way.
Where do they do that?
My understanding of U.S.A. First amendment is that government won't infringe on your right of free speech. It doesn't say you can come into my home, workplace, store, or website and yell what you want on my property.
There's nothing "Extrajudicial" about it and it's not "Protected speech". It's just a business owner saying "you can say whatever you want, but not necessarily in my home, on a platform I built and pay for".
I think we've gone weird somewhere if we think Facebook == Public Square on any level. It's just somebody's storefront (and insert cliches about who / what is the product :)
In some ways, I am hoping tech giants do MORE weird policies / bans / things, so hopefully general population sees it as a private proprietary closed property / platform that it is, not a friendly public gathering spot we somehow take it for. But I still don't think they are doing anything illegal/extrajudicial... it seems people feel they have strange rights or ownership on Facebook or Twitter, have some investment in property, treat it almost as a mix of paid-for condo and public space (depending on what they need to assert at the moment)... and none of that is the case. At best, you are walking in a Mall, and if you start yelling obscenities, pontificating, or even start advertising for different shops etc, the mall security guard will escort you out, as is legal and proper. It's not government infringing your constitutionally protect free speech, it's not extrajudicial, even if you don't like it and really really wanted to yell obscenities or market your business or promote your personal point of view in the mall.
- Aaron Swartz
Our government, on some level, is supposed to be accountable to general public and there exists, in principle, a mechanism to hold them accountable.
Whether that mechanism is flawless or not, whether it works as well as we want it to, should not distract from the fact that there isn't even REMOTELY such a mechanism for big corporations. When people clamor for flawed government being replaced by companies, I shudder exactly for that reason. You're trading system with public protection/accountability that's flawed, to one where public protection/accountability do not exist, by design.
My post should not be mis-interpreted as being against government or regulation.
But I don't think Facebook is infringing upon my constitutionally protected free speech. If we want to regulate Facebook (and I think we should), we need to have a more thought-through reason, method, desired goal and tracking of outcomes.
This is exactly my point. If we are going to classify online discussion on platforms like Facebook as being protected free speech, there is no way that we can allow those services to be in control of who gets to say what. The government has an obligation to provide an acceptable platform for citizens to have online discussions in that case which would actually serve as a digital "town square", protected by our first amendment rights. Anything else becomes a de facto infringement of those rights. And saying "well you can build your own website" is naive and missing the point. To put a barrier like that in front of the exercising of one's rights is tantamount to a digital Jim Crow.
But that is a massive "If" and I'm denying you the premise, until you convince me otherwise. I think you're starting from a certain point assuming everybody is there already.
Note, I agree with many of your detailed points later, such as "build your own website" missing the network effects of established platforms; but most fundamentally I think what you're taking for granted is the actual big important discussion to be had, e.g. "The government has an obligation to provide an acceptable platform for citizens to have online discussions" - I don't think Government has that obligation today, and if you / we think it should, then that's the discussion and lobbying to be had.
(Never mind how well I think a government-created platform with government-designed technical stack and UI, and with guaranteed free speech and no moderation whatsoever, will actually work in practice... to quote Frank Borman, what we have here is a failure of imagination :P )
In their decisions about which comments to delete and which not; which users to ban and which not.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
edit: Wow, 3+ of us jumped in with same link, Mr. Masnick has a following here :D
That's a noble goal, but this is a clear culture war law that will crumble under any real scrutiny. Hitching your wagon to a law that's all about sticking your finger in someone's eye isn't going to help your cause. So instead, what could a good regulation look like?
Maybe something that says these providers are forced to moderate the user-facing pieces of their platform separately from the core infrastructure pieces of their platform: so you can be banned from posting to Facebook for whatever reason Facebook wants, but your existing "Login with Facebook" connections won't break.
Maybe toss in some data retention requirements as well – you can't post new photos, for example, and you have up to a year to pull the photos you've posted before Facebook is allowed to purge them.
Also giants like Google should not break all your stuff if they consider you did something wrong on youtube.
Your perspective changes when you are hit by this stuff. My son managed to get my PlayStation account suspended for 2 months(while I have a 1 year subscription PS+ working) without no right to appeal and no clear/exact reason of what happened.
It’s hard to say what the right balance would be. But just imagine if instead of the US, we were in Belarus. Or any other country with autocratic tendencies. Would we want the media to be one sided even if it’s controlled by oligarchs who would have clear selfish agendas?
What do we want when the pendulum swings the other way? The same top down private decision on permissibility?
I think there is a reason the likes of Roger Daltrey, John Cleese and others are weary of tech censorship. If these tools had been available in the 70s and 80s the world would be a different place.