Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf]
www2.law.ucla.edu
Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf]
1–10 of 95 posts
Re: Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf]
#2For context: This paper argues that online platforms constitute a sort of "infrastructure" similar to utilities, and that they should be regulated to guarantee equal access.
This idea is not new - it has been discussed under different terms, e.g. with relation to "must carry"-rules for cable providers.
To simplify a bit, the argument boils down to the question of liability and responsibility for content curation. Platforms either curate content and are liable; in this scenario, they may be held accountable within media regulatory norms. Or they don't curate and provide equal access, then they aren't liable and free from media regulatory normative standards.
Note that the US' pretty exceptional take on free speech (as an untouchable right) very much complicates this simplified description.
Re: Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf]
#3By the way, one of the colleagues thanked in this piece is Eric Goldman, who has written the highly recommended paper titled "Search Engine Bias and the Demise of Search Engine Utopianism" [1]. He also frequently writes at [2]
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=893892
[2] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/author/eric-goldman
[edit] While I'm at it, one of the best summaries of the whole neutrality debate is from Laura Granka [3], and Goldman has his own summary here [4]
[3] Granka, L. A. (2010). The Politics of Search: A Decade Retrospective. The Information Society, 26(5), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2010.511560
[4] Goldman, E. (2011). Revisiting Search Engine Bias (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1860402). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1860402
Re: Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf]
#4For context: This paper argues that online platforms constitute a sort of "infrastructure" similar to utilities, and that they should be regulated to guarantee equal access. This idea is not new - it has been discussed under different terms, e.g. with relation to "must carry"-rules for cable providers. To simplify a bit, the argument boils down to the question of liability and responsibility for content curation. Pla…
Having only read the introduction of this paper myself, this seems to be an apt summary of its contents.
Also worth noting that the language in this paper is very approachable and rife with footnotes that often point to past legal decisions, if not precedents. Even if you don't agree with the thesis of this paper, it still makes for an eloquent and informative read of one side of the aisle.
Re: Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf]
#5For context: This paper argues that online platforms constitute a sort of "infrastructure" similar to utilities, and that they should be regulated to guarantee equal access. This idea is not new - it has been discussed under different terms, e.g. with relation to "must carry"-rules for cable providers. To simplify a bit, the argument boils down to the question of liability and responsibility for content curation. Pla…
Having only read the introduction of this paper myself, this seems to be an apt summary of its contents. Also worth noting that the language in this paper is very approachable and rife with footnotes that often point to past legal decisions, if not precedents. Even if you don't agree with the thesis of this paper, it still makes for an eloquent and informative read of one side of the aisle.
Well, it is a scholarly law paper.
[edit] To clarify: Being a scholarly law paper means that (1) it is well-documented and thoroughly researched, but also (2) it may employ words that seem to have a common-sense meaning but really don't. Things such as "fair", "bias", "access", "responsible" etc. have very precise legal meanings that are not readily apparent.
Re: Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf]
#6For context: This paper argues that online platforms constitute a sort of "infrastructure" similar to utilities, and that they should be regulated to guarantee equal access. This idea is not new - it has been discussed under different terms, e.g. with relation to "must carry"-rules for cable providers. To simplify a bit, the argument boils down to the question of liability and responsibility for content curation. Pla…
I think this is only an issue because there is no public digital infrastructure. We need an "internet post office" whose only rules are the law, operates at-cost for users, and is completely free of liability. For example, you can't sue the post office if someone mails a pirated DVD.
Would it be used almost exclusively by extremists and lunatics? Probably, but I still think it's worth having if only in light of all the HN stories about how some account slip-up at Google utterly ruined someone's life. Everyone deserves an email address they can never lose access to.
Re: Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf]
#7For context: This paper argues that online platforms constitute a sort of "infrastructure" similar to utilities, and that they should be regulated to guarantee equal access. This idea is not new - it has been discussed under different terms, e.g. with relation to "must carry"-rules for cable providers. To simplify a bit, the argument boils down to the question of liability and responsibility for content curation. Pla…
I think this is only an issue because there is no public digital infrastructure. We need an "internet post office" whose only rules are the law, operates at-cost for users, and is completely free of liability. For example, you can't sue the post office if someone mails a pirated DVD. Would it be used almost exclusively by extremists and lunatics? Probably, but I still think it's worth having if only in light of all t…
Whether this is a good idea is seen differently in different countries.
Countries with strong public service broadcasters (e.g. the BBC in the UK) tend to consider state-run information infrastructure a good idea, at least in a dual system including private corporations.
Countries without public service media see private marked actors as perfectly sufficient.
Needless to say, the US is squarely the second type.
Re: Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf]
#8For context: This paper argues that online platforms constitute a sort of "infrastructure" similar to utilities, and that they should be regulated to guarantee equal access. This idea is not new - it has been discussed under different terms, e.g. with relation to "must carry"-rules for cable providers. To simplify a bit, the argument boils down to the question of liability and responsibility for content curation. Pla…
I think this is only an issue because there is no public digital infrastructure. We need an "internet post office" whose only rules are the law, operates at-cost for users, and is completely free of liability. For example, you can't sue the post office if someone mails a pirated DVD. Would it be used almost exclusively by extremists and lunatics? Probably, but I still think it's worth having if only in light of all t…
Isn't that sort of basically email now? If you sub to the mailing list of "extremists and lunatics" then you'll probably get your email on extreme and lunatic issues.
The issue is, the extremists and lunatics don't just want email, they want twitter, facebook and all the inherent amplification capabilities of both. Not just a 1 to 1 message, not even a 1 to many messages but full on advertising to potentially interested users the same as the cat pics/videos get.
Re: Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf]
#9For context: This paper argues that online platforms constitute a sort of "infrastructure" similar to utilities, and that they should be regulated to guarantee equal access. This idea is not new - it has been discussed under different terms, e.g. with relation to "must carry"-rules for cable providers. To simplify a bit, the argument boils down to the question of liability and responsibility for content curation. Pla…
I think this is only an issue because there is no public digital infrastructure. We need an "internet post office" whose only rules are the law, operates at-cost for users, and is completely free of liability. For example, you can't sue the post office if someone mails a pirated DVD. Would it be used almost exclusively by extremists and lunatics? Probably, but I still think it's worth having if only in light of all t…
Do extremists and lunatics want their email handled by the government?
Re: Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf]
#10For context: This paper argues that online platforms constitute a sort of "infrastructure" similar to utilities, and that they should be regulated to guarantee equal access. This idea is not new - it has been discussed under different terms, e.g. with relation to "must carry"-rules for cable providers. To simplify a bit, the argument boils down to the question of liability and responsibility for content curation. Pla…
The advantage of the paper is that it has a great deal of detail and research, done apparently by someone with actual knowledge of the law and case history in question. Usual discussions of the common carrier or public space argument tend to stop at a surface level because everyone involved in the discussion only has basic knowledge and training, so it's interesting to see it more carefully examined.
As just one example, it argues that social media companies are not necessarily protected from being compelled to host content they disagree with simply because it would be "compelled speech," as stated in the rejection of recent Florida legislation. There are a number of existing cases where entities were compelled to do just that because they were operating a public space, even if privately owned (a shopping mall for example). Agree or disagree, this is information I wasn't aware of (and probably a lot of readers here as well), so it's interesting information to have.