No post body was provided.
Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
21–30 of 598 posts
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#22Entirely reasonable either they are publishers and thus have free speech and carry full penalties for all the content they allow. Or they are carriers and thus should have no say, but also no risks of content.
That's not how the law is written. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was SPECIFICALLY written to allow providers of "interactive computer services" to moderate 3rd party content posted to their servers. This was to address the issue in the early 90s where online forms didn't moderate at all for fear of taking on liability.
A situation of only draconian moderation or none at all will tend towards only draconian moderation since very few users want a truly unmoderated space like the more obscure chan sites. Its the worst of both worlds.
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#23This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. If you don't like what you read, or if you read things that are not true that is on you as an individual to make appropriate choices. The government shouldnt meddle with social networks. They are just that, social and voluntary.
social networks straddle the fence. They want to be common carriers when it comes to being responsible for the content published on their platforms and then they want to be publishers when it comes to deciding what content is curated, promoted, and publicized on their platform.
They were allowed to have it both ways because the Internet and especially user generated content was new and no one knew where it would go. Now I think there's been plenty of history and time to see it shake out and they should pick an option; either common carrier or publisher but not both.
/ did i use that semicolon right?
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#24This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. If you don't like what you read, or if you read things that are not true that is on you as an individual to make appropriate choices. The government shouldnt meddle with social networks. They are just that, social and voluntary.
The government already regulates publishers. When you make decisions about what to feature and what to exclude you are a publisher.
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#25100% agree with florida here, would be huge for me
I guess you’d support no more downvoting or flagging post here either.
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#26Entirely reasonable either they are publishers and thus have free speech and carry full penalties for all the content they allow. Or they are carriers and thus should have no say, but also no risks of content.
Congress passed a law to specifically ensure they are websites are not responsible for the speech they reproduce. This law is good because it encourages content moderation because there are never consequences for the moderation decisions.
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#27Entirely reasonable either they are publishers and thus have free speech and carry full penalties for all the content they allow. Or they are carriers and thus should have no say, but also no risks of content.
They are obviously publishers at this point.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-...
> We’ll say it plainly here: there is no legal significance to labeling an online service a “platform” as opposed to a “publisher.” Yes. That’s right. There is no legal significance to labeling an online service a “platform.” Nor does the law treat online services differently based on their ideological “neutrality” or lack thereof.
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#28This seems to be centered on politics/candidates, which IMO is the wrong motivation. Politicians really should not have special exemptions or privileges when it comes to free speech issues. Eg: they have exceptions to use robo-calls, text spam, etc. Realistically, we probably need to define when an organization is a media influencer vs. a niche communications platform. I do think Facebook/Twitter/Etc. need to be held…
> This seems to be centered on politics/candidates, which IMO is the wrong motivation.
Because political censorship is the worst censorship (you might argue that all censorship is political.) It's like how political prisoners are the easiest sign a place is a dictatorship.
If the powerful are censoring the political process, there are no means to make any of the powerful less powerful. It becomes self-perpetuating.
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#29Welcome to the natural consequence of social networks becoming important to just do daily business. The phone companies, and other utilities, operate under strict rules. I do wonder how many and type of companies will become internet utilities?
99.5% of Americans could never log into Facebook, Twitter or anything ever again with no substantial impact on their daily lives. The remaining 0.5% have careers centered around social media and should probably find a real job.
Honest to goodness, the hyperventilation about how "important" social media is just amazes me.
Re: Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers
#30This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. If you don't like what you read, or if you read things that are not true that is on you as an individual to make appropriate choices. The government shouldnt meddle with social networks. They are just that, social and voluntary.
A corporation is a creation of government. Why shouldn't they be able to regulate them any way they think best? Which isn't necessarily to say this is a good idea, but... of course government should be able to tell companies how to operate.