Using "actively" as emphasis is so, so tired. You're implying without evidence that they're doing it as part of some pro-Biden strategy. Why?
Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. Do you support the Citizens United decision?
Also, corporations either have personhood or they don't. Do you support the Citizens United decision?
I'm fine with allowing them to censor speech if they also are liable for the speech they do choose to publish, just like any other individual, newspaper, or publisher would be.
Platforms cannot simultaneously claim that:
(1) They are mere conduits for other people's speech, and thus, deserve to be shielded from any liability for what they publish
(2) What they publish is their own speech, and thus, their publication choices should be considered protected expression under the first amendment.
If Fox News publishes libel, they can’t just claim that they’re hosting someone else’s reporting.
If a telecommunications provider publishes someone’s libel, they are shielded from liability as a common carrier. In exchange, however, they must provide their services non-discriminatorily to the public.
If FedEx delivers controlled substances as part of their usual course of business, they are also shielded from liability as a common carrier, but the same responsibility to serve the general public applies.
YouTube and other “interactive computer services”, however, were granted an explicit privileged shield from liability by the Communications Decency Act of 1996, with none of the responsibilities historically associated with that privilege.
Without the CDA, Twitter wouldn’t exist; they’d have been sued into oblivion long ago. Instead of solving that problem by extending our well-understood common carrier framework to “interactive computer services”, we granted them a massive privilege and asked for nothing in return.
Providing service without discriminating... how does holding all users accountable to the same terms of service not satisfy that requirement? I don't know of any cases where a person kicked off their ISP for torrenting subsequently denounced the ISP as a "publisher".
Are you saying that we get to dictate to internet companies exactly what their services entail? Doesn't sound quite right to me.
The idea that a single website is a common carrier seems to stretch the definition to the breaking point. It ignores the general understanding that common carrier designations tend to occur in situations involving natural monopolies.
A website decides what information it takes in, stores, displays, and transfers. No one's rights are violated when they take information from you but don't display it anywhere else. You are not entitled to an audience on their infrastructure; go find a website who shares your ideas about how to operate.
Really, I'm curious if you think making websites liable for the content their users post will actually further the goals of free expression on the Internet.
When internet giants suddenly have a huge incentive to withhold content that powerful interests might sue over, what sort of platform for free expression do you think social media will end up becoming?
At any rate, this would be a stupid and abhorrent policy which would nonetheless not discriminate in the sense described by federal law. The marketplace of ideas being what it is, I'm not sure what kind of foothold such a site would be able to get, having such a stupid policy.
The definition and purpose of a "common carrier" has no relation to monopoly status whatsoever, whether you're referring to English common law (the concept dates back to the 1600s), or in its modern US incarnations.
Conceptually, the principle of common carriage is that:
(1) There are beneficial services that private entities can only feasibly provide if they are granted special privileges generally reserved by the government.
(2) Such services, in exchange for being granted those privileges at a cost to the public, must also serve the public.
> Are you saying that we get to dictate to internet companies exactly what their services entail? Doesn't sound quite right to me.
"Telecommunications providers" — landline and cellular telephone companies — are already classified as common carriers under our telecommunication laws. We don't dictate exactly what their services entail.
ISPs are not classified as "telecommunications providers", mainly because ISPs have spent a lot of money and lobbied very, very hard over the past three decades to avoid exactly that outcome. They convinced Congress to grant them the privileges without the responsibilities. Net neutrality was just a skirmish in this very long-running war.
> Really, I'm curious if you think making websites liable for the content their users post will actually further the goals of free expression on the Internet.
Yes, absolutely. If you do not want to operate as a common carrier — that is, on a non-discriminatory basis, neutral as to use and user — then you do not get the special privileges granted by the government to common carriers serving the public interest.
Websites will be forced to either:
(1) Take responsibility for their content posted by their users — including the spread of libel, disinformation, harassment, doxing, threats, et al, or
(2) Serve the public square, neutral as to use and user, in exchange for the privilege of limited liability for what they publish.
From https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...:
"As part of its attempt to exempt new entrants from common carriage requirements, the FCC ruled that even providers who held themselves out as serving all comers were not common carriers unless they possessed market power, only to see this decision struck down on judicial review as exceeding the FCC’s statutory authority. Congress subsequently amended the statute to give the FCC the authority to exempt firms that lacked monopoly power from common carriage requirements. After experimenting with different approaches, the FCC now applies a traditional market-power framework to determine when it should exercise its so-called forbearance authority.
Even skeptical commentators recognize that it has become the dominant, if not the sole, criterion for determining the scope of common carriage."
> > Really, I'm curious if you think making websites liable for the content their users post will actually further the goals of free expression on the Internet.
> Yes, absolutely. If you do not want to operate as a common carrier — that is, on a non-discriminatory basis, neutral as to use and user — then you do not get the special privileges granted by the government to common carriers serving the public interest.
Is this dichotomy recognized as such in any consequential legal decisions? Where can it be shown that internet companies meet the standard criteria for being a common carrier? Since I cited a source, perhaps you might also.
> on a non-discriminatory basis
All references I can find to nondiscrimination in connection with common carriers are about price, e.g. charging different prices for the same service quality, or vice versa. How does this apply to social media companies who charge their users nothing, and whose service is not a commodity whose quality is measurable in absolute terms?
You clearly don't like section 230, but you're not really contending with the ramifications of your position.
Your analysis stops at the point of passage of some hypothetical legislation removing section 230 protections, which is not really the point of my question about free expression. What is the actual downstream systemic effect on what speech users are allowed to express, and that providers are discouraged from permitting?
I think it's safe to say that correctly identifying disinformation (not to mention libel) is flat-out impossible at a certain scale. Much disinformation is impossible to prove as such at any scale - would you require users to cite sources? Or just limit themselves to expressions of opinion?
Providers and users will thus have to satisfy themselves with imperfectly coarse filters and policies that inevitably chill more speech than intended. This probably goes double for video content, since analysis is that much more difficult.
Not an internet I would be interested in using.
Lobbying efforts, lobbyist-funded legal opinions, and a captured regulatory body don’t a valid legal/policy argument make.
Yes, congress has given away massive privileges to ISPs and none of the responsibilities; that’s the whole point. That was a mistake; the gift of privatization of a public good.
Thanks to heavy lobbying, ISPs have avoided being classified as common carriers entirely (irrespective of their sitting in a monopoly position).
> Your analysis stops at the point of passage of some hypothetical legislation removing section 230 protections, which is not really the point of my question about free expression. What is the actual downstream systemic effect on what speech users are allowed to express, and that providers are discouraged from permitting?
The downstream effect is that providers either have to take responsibility for what they claim is their own speech, or in exchange for the privilege of a shield from liability for what they post, serve the public good regardless of use or user, and operate their sites as an open public forum.
I think it’d be an incredible improvement to the state of public discourse.
If this particular comment section is any indication, there are large groups of people living entirely in information bubbles that have no idea what their ostensible opposition actually believe, have seemingly lost the ability to actually critically read and understand opposing viewpoints, and whom argue voraciously and without exception against straw men solely of their own devising.
https://news.softpedia.com/news/ISP-Sued-For-Banning-BitTorr...
In countries with Net Neutrality, or more : those where Internet access has been deemed a minimal human right, needed for basic citizenship, Internet Service Providers are indeed very restricted in what and how they are allowed to block...