Yup. Make Youtube a "common carrier" or something similar.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/26/this-is-really-really-du...
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/23/11th-circuit-disagrees-w...
https://www.techdirt.com/2021/06/08/conservatives-want-commo...
Something should be done to ward off the Kafkaesque future we are heading for, but declaring websites as common carriers is a poor way to do it.
- Google tailors results to users, so it shouldn't be considered a common carrier
- Google doesn't charge users for access, so it shouldn't be considered a common carrier
- Internet search isn't a vital public service, so Google shouldn't be considered a common carrier
I totally believe you that there may be reasons not to consider common carrier a magic solution, but... I disagree with all three of those points.
(in other words: I think two people searching for the same terms at the same time should see the same results, and I don't think it matters that the service is funded based on indirect (advertising / tax) revenue, and I do think that many people -- in all kinds of environments -- can reasonably expect Internet access and web search to the point where we should consider it a public necessity)
I agree, but that's not the point being stated.
The point is that the entire concept of Google is about ranking (a form of discrimination) the relevancy of websites to the search query. Common carrier status means that a search for "Microsoft official website" would not be able to prioritize Microsoft's official website, because that would be discriminating against all other websites that claim to be Microsoft's official website (and, by extension, discrimination against the people hosting those websites, who would then be able to sue Google for that discrimination).
Common carrier status also throws a giant wrench into the already problematic issue of content moderation.
The 11th Circuit's ruling explains the concept much more eloquently and with much greater detail than I can hope to (the full ruling is available via the 2nd link in my post).
>I agree, but that's not the point being stated.
I mostly agree, but I can see where being located in completely different locales might lead to slightly different results without nefarious intent.
Sure, I can get on board with some niche cases where tailored results are non-nefarious and beneficial to the end user.
And that sort of hammers my point further, as common carrier status would make discrimination based on location a potential lawsuit.
I dislike that google hides what is being done.
Not really. All you'd have to do is make the algorithm public, and become a commodity. When you're a common carrier, you sell bandwidth, not magic fairy dust.
> Common carrier status means that a search for "Microsoft official website" would not be able to prioritize Microsoft's official website, because that would be discriminating against all other websites that claim to be Microsoft's official website (and, by extension, discrimination against the people hosting those websites, who would then be able to sue Google for that discrimination).
This is absurd. Trademark violators can't sue for not being treated like the real deal any more than I can demand that my phone company say that all of my calls come from the White House. If Microsoft backs up their claims to all be official, then they all should be able to sue.
edit:
> Common carrier status also throws a giant wrench into the already problematic issue of content moderation.
No it doesn't, it decides it for Google. And Congress would be free to allow Google to do whatever moderation it wants, and this shitty court might give it even more latitude. Count me as someone who is perfectly happy with preventing Google from doing any content moderation not required by law. All of the drive to censor has been coming from Congress and the administration anyway; the real danger in the current climate is that Google becomes a common carrier and gets the analog of the Great Firewall dropped around it the next day.
As to the first amendment concerns, OK. We tie the section 230 protections to keeping their hands off the delete key instead. There are no first amendment concerns for holding nigh-monopolist social media companies responsible for the libelous, threatening, defamatory, terroristic content they choose to host every day.
These companies are not good faith actors. It is time to stop treating them as such.
I thought I made it super clear, but to make it even more super duper clear; I agree. What we have now isn't working.
However, I don't think common carrier status is the appropriate or effective way to go about making changes. And I think the articles I posted are a good (mainly, they are convenient and the first two are timely) introduction to why I believe that.
Several parts of that directly contradict the arguments that techdirr is trying to make.
Edit: For example, one of those articles says "American courts identify industries and businesses as common carriers if they do not distinguish between customers or decide what they will and will not carry. " Which gets the relationship between non-descrimination and common carrier status exactly backwards. Non-discrimination and interoperability are legal requirements imposed on private companies due to their common carrier status in exchange for reducing their liability.