71–80 of 598 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why aren't ISPs regulated like common carriers?
Before 2018 they were, and now they are listed as Title I information services. There is a bit of a court fight over the ability of state regulators to impose rules. I would imagine that they could be moved back if they cause trouble for politicians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It wouldn’t take that long for people to read up on what section 230 actually is before saying “publisher” like that means anything (is related to anything the law talks about).
Laws of course need interpretation, but if people think, “Oh, they’re a ‘publisher’” (whatever that means; they probably couldn’t tell you) “they must be subject to different rules,” they’re frankly just kind of dumb.
At this point we need to recognize that these "private companies" are now de facto state actors. They take censorship advice from government agencies (like the CDC), ban certain people in response to political pressures, and hand over user's private data without a warrant. That doesn't mean regulating them like common carries is good or workable, but we need to start by recognizing that there are first amendment clai…
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Let's please not make the mistake of saying all issues that relate to freedom of speech are First Amendment issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This law is good because it encourages content moderation This is too direct for me to be putting words in your mouth: do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?
Content moderation is a balancing act. Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. Do you believe that zero content moderation is good?
> Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action.
We should help them by giving them far less latitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good? Yes. Because it's a natural extension of property rights. Do you not believe in property rights?
I don't believe in natural property rights, because I don't know how to find them in nature. Property rights as assigned by law don't have to be believed in, just observed, because they are enforced. "Natural extensions" of property rights are religious beliefs. I believe they should be protected, but not indulged.
Property rights as assigned by law let you decide who to allow or disallow access to your property. If the property is open to the general public, there are some additional rules you have to follow. But you're free to ban activities from your property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It’s a little (a lot) frustrating that people are so sloppy with their thoughts (and by relation speech) on this subject. It wouldn’t take that long for people to read up on what section 230 actually is before saying “publisher” like that means anything (is related to anything the law talks about). Laws of course need interpretation, but if people think, “Oh, they’re a ‘publisher’” (whatever that means; they probably…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> This law is good because it encourages content moderation This is too direct for me to be putting words in your mouth: do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?
Very few things are unambiguously good; particularly without specifying a moral or ethical context.
Meanwhile, Florida is purging libraries of unpopular political opinions. This is not about a principled approach to free speech. It's about protecting the right to enforce religious-inspired bigotry, tearing down the separation of church and state even as that bigotry becomes "unpopular."
To what are you referring?
Relatedly, the vague "don't say gay" law has a significant impact on LGBTQ teachers right to free expression -- straight teachers are totally free to talk about their spouses, for example, but gay teachers are not. Quite reminiscent of the "don't ask don't tell" policy.
[1] https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/a-viral-list-of-b...
[2] https://floridapolitics.com/archives/557111-florida-second-o...
I’ll ask the same question I asked on the other threads to all those cheering this - do you think HN will be the same without moderation? Or just another 4chan? Will r/conservative stop banning users who dare suggest trump was maybe not such a good person, even if they are otherwise extremely conservative?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unclear to me that email and CDNs are the kinds of natural monopolies that need to be regulated as common carriers
Look what happened to Kiwi Farms, and what happens to people who try to host their own outgoing SMTP server.