Edit: "Mediation by courts" is the secret ingredient. Without a fair court, law (and by implication, Code of Conducts) are just a methods of fortifying the ruling peoples power.
This seems an extreme opinion, to think that penalties for criminal acts don't have some type of deterrence effect. And even if deterrence is minimal, a rule or law that simply make repeat offense impossible seems to be a reasonable approach to dealing with things (you can't rob a bank in prison)
That's exactly what has been happening over the past decades:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bia...
Typically, you'll find such waivers on playgrounds, theme parks, public venues and such where the venue can be exempt from liability in case of injury through negligence. Just because you signed a waiver doesn't mean you don't have a case. The court might find that the waiver is trumped by violations in public policy, or it ends up being entered with the intention of effecting an illegal or amoral agreement.
In the U.S., such waivers aren't necessary since digital services are well protected by Section 230 providing immunity from liability for providers of an "interactive computer service" who publishes information provided by a third party. The majority of the cases in that Verge article was lost by the plaintiffs over Section 230.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
A typical argument used by opponents of these services is "freedom of speech" and "censorship". Legally speaking, these only apply in the relationship between the state and members of the public. It means being prosecuted and getting convicted for something you said. A landmark case here is "New York Times Co. v. United States" in which SCOTUS allowed newspapers to publish the then-classified pentagon papers under First Amendment right without censorship or punishment by the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_S...
These do NOT apply when it comes to civil lawsuits between private citizens and private legal entities. When you get banned from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Vivaldi's e-mail service, none of your constitutional rights where violated. You weren't thrown in prison or convicted by a judge. All that happened was a private service cutting you off. It's the exact equivalent of a host of a private party having security escort you to the exit. Property laws and constitutional laws give the host legal backing to do exactly that. Banning people from digital services is merely an extension here.
Lawmakers in Florida and Texas, though, are currently trying passed laws which would which makes banning people from digital services "based on their viewpoints" illegal. The idea is to undermine the fundamental laws and rights you have.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-medi...
In Florida, that law has already been blocked by a judge pointing out inherent inequalities through exemptions, and the fact that it directly challenges federal law - Section 230 - as well as the First Amendment.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22661626/texas-social-medi...
Complex as all of this may sound, it's really simple though. You are a private individual engaging in the market place between competing e-mail providers. You are not forced by a governement or the state to use a particular service. If you disagree with the terms of service from a particular provider: don't use that provider. You are even entirely free to start your own e-mail service if you wish to do so.
That's what you have. So, what's the problem then?
Well, what about markets where consolidation has led to a monopoly of a handful of players? What about social media markets where you're compelled to use Facebook or Twitter because your entire social network exclusively communicates through the infrastructure of these private entities? Getting banned from those has a severe impact on a private citizens life, right?
Here things become hairy. There's a difference between your legal freedoms and rights you have, and the de facto affordances provided by the marketplace or the commons to actually enforce them as a private citizen e.g. consumer choice, fair pricing, etc. It's very hard to prove that the existence of a monopoly is violating your legal or constitutional rights as a private individual. (Again, all of this pertains to the relationship between private persons and private legal entities. Not a public government!)
Private monopolies tend to thrive where there are gaps in a legal framework which ensures that private citizens don't end up at a disadvantage in the marketplace. That's where the legislative branch of government ought to come in to assert that the marketplace isn't behaving in a way which benefits the citizen represented by that government, and take affirmative action through new legislation.
That's why Big Tech was brought before several Congressional hearings earlier this year.
Personally, I feel that the freedom to ban people from a community is a fundamental necessity to keep that community healthy. On a basic human level, there's no point in having people who can't go through the same door confront each other over and over again.
However, I do feel there's a major public issue when a ban ends up in de facto ostracizing of members of the public because the entirety of society - millions of people - have become secluded in digital walled gardens. Even though I fundamentally disagree with the views others may harbor, this level of centralization, well, that's not the kind of Internet I'm okay with.
This statement is like if you went to someone’s house, and they decided you were being annoying and told you to leave, and you demanded due process before that.
Given your approach, wouldn't you loose most of your friends this way?
My point is that you don’t have an obligation to maintain a relationship with someone. If they are being consistently annoying (even without breaking some consistent rule obviously!) it’s totally normal to just decide they don’t belong.
And you don’t have to listen to reasons. You don’t have to entertain the explanation if you don’t want to. You can of course! But there are enough sociopaths wanting to play the system that there’s a lot of pain in trying to be super open to certain kinds of behavior
Large corporations, operating at a scale much closer to that of governments than to that of individuals, have been shoehorning themselves into our allowances for individuals to avoid having any sort of public processes or accountability. As we've seen with the evolution of governments, ultimately this will not stand.
Excellent point-- as a company's market penetration (at least in some cases) approaches a significant part of the population, the difference between government (in the sense of a public service) and private company becomes less and less distinguishable for the power held over customers.
Not unlike the situation that occured with Bell Telephone where it became such an essential part of day to day life for most people that the control it had was on par with being a branch of the US government itself. It was a shame about Bell Labs though. They still did some good work after the breakup but that whole organization just seemed to fade away from its former glory. Though maybe they'll eventually flourish again under Nokia.
It's private. It's more like a nightclub, bar, or whatever. You have rules to enter and stay. Thousands go there (you may say it's "public"?) but it's private.
Are you wearing the wrong shoes? If so, you may not enter.
Do you belong to the wrong social class? You may not enter.
Do you like starting fights? If so, you'll be shown the door.
You don't like those rules... The solution? Don't go to those bars or forums.
Reasonable people will certainly differ on this, but we're not arguing semantics, or about violating the sanctity of someone's control over their personal sphere.
How is this different than a large store like a supermarket where you buy food? The only difference I see is one of geographical barriers, and I don't see how that should fundamentally change the dynamics of how to appropriately deal with inappropriate or disruptive behavior.
Which, much like many "ladies nights" is illegal. Why pick the worst type of establishment as a model for this behaviour?
Now, even moderated outlets have safe harbor protections under the DMCA and similar protections under Section 230 and Section 509 of the CDA which determined that internet services were not (automatically) publishers. Courts have held that outlets are in the clear if they make a reasonable effort to identify illegal content and also take action when something is brought to their attention.
> This statement is like if you went to someone’s house
You mean like renting an apartment
> and you demanded due process before that.
In case they locked you out without ability to get your belongings or mail a court case may be sensible.
So I'm not sure to what extent that payment for Vivaldi's email service changes things.
You need permission to run a business, and the state will dictate how you run it. The same is not so applicable to a personal household. No one will shut down your house for making poor food, or discriminating against guests.
Is the government a special, extraordinary group of people?
The people that work there? No. As an organization? Absolutely: In any democracy it is essentially an organization that is owned by everyone. It cannot (well, should not) make laws that are exclusionary to anyone because everyone owns a piece of it, and everyone contributes in some small way to making the rules.
With private property/companies the group of owners is much smaller, but once again they make the rules. If owners of private property don't get to make their own rules (within the constraints of the law) then it's really now private property.
If I owned a large building and turned it into a conference center and invited people to come discuss things then it seems obvious that I should have the right to decide to kick someone out if they are making trouble, turning meetings into shouting matches, and generally making it harder for my building to fill the purpose I want it to fill.
This seems to map pretty cleanly onto internet forums owned, operated, and paid for by a private group. They're paying for things, they have their own goals for doing so, and people that disrupt those goals have no right to make the owners waste their resources on something being ruined by disruptions under the odd claim that anyone from the public has the privilege of doing whatever they want there.
Preventing a private organization from removing disruptions to its purpose is inimicable to the idea of private property itself.
Is this an accurate restatement?
I was told at the last minute I needed to redo my example because it violates the code of conduct about discriminating against "people of size" and may be upsetting to people with "eating disorders"
I didn't even respond. I just stopped responding to their requests and didn't show up.
Codes of Conduct are used as blunt instruments now, and aren't useful.
Obviously doing this has pros and cons.
https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/
Do realize that most victims do not dare to go public but accept the humiliation.
This guy is a part of the problem.
Yeah, we tried unregulated free speech on social media. Didn't work.
Trying to 'fact check' your uncle who thinks the 2020 election was rigged forced him off that platform and onto another without those constraints. In that process, he's being exposed to even worse points of view.
Outside of the English-speaking world, the mainstream social media platforms are far less moderated. So we have a place where we can test your theory, it's not hypothetical!
Result: Race-riots in Sri Lanka, anti-refugee violence in Germany, Rohingyan genocide in Myanmar, all fueled by disinformation on Facebook and organized on Facebook.
Uncontrolled social media creates a fact-free environment where the worst conspiracy theories and ethnic hatred spread like wildfire.
Truth matters.
Saying "truth matters" is just an empty slogan without defining what truth means, and in itself is not a solution to what the real problem is which is the alienation people feel as a result of capitalism.
> Don't attribute causation to what just could easily be the null effect.
Alienation existed before capitalism.
Also, "empty slogan" is kind of ironic in the same breath blaming capitalism for all our ills.
Capitalism is the predominant driving force behind alienation when every aspect of their lives becomes commoditizated. Facebook isn't the driving force behind genocides, in spite of what influence Facebook would like advertisers would like them to believe. (If you have a service that can sell genocide and allow people to 'steal elections', imagine what it can do for sugar water!)
Please, let's not switch metaphors. It's not a megaphone, it's a house.
> Demanding that the government enforce your right
The government is the one who makes the "house" into private property in the first place.
Democracy and freedom of speech doesn't mean anything if there's nowhere to speak. If you don't have an actual power to speak _including_ all material prerequisites of communication, then how are you a citizen? Why should you accept liberal democracy?
The internet lacks this because we have no government infrastructure that directly hosts messages. There is no internet equivalent to standing on a street-corner with a sign, using only the tools of communication that you own, in a public space.
If I run an offensive protest inside of a mall, I will be asked to leave and ultimately thrown out. In this sense, Facebook is the digital equivalent to the mall - they own the space.
The difference is that there is no street in front of the mall I could use instead. Even if I set up my own server, I will have to connect it to my privately-owned ISP, install it at a privately-owned datacentre.
That, to me, is the only real difference. The internet has no spaces that aren't somebody's house, unlike meatspace.
But imho, the solution is to create public spaces on the internet, not to demand that private spaces become public ones against their will.
In the USA, it's not only government-owned property that is considered a public forum.
E.g. Occupy Wall St was on private property (Zuccotti Park), but they couldn't be evicted for that -- because a park open to the public in that way is a public forum. (They were eventually evicted supposedly for health/sanitation reasons.)
> If I run an offensive protest inside of a mall, I will be asked to leave and ultimately thrown out. In this sense, Facebook is the digital equivalent to the mall - they own the space.
In fact, the public walkways in a privately-owned mall are considered a public forum.
https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...