Are Social Media Platforms a Public Utility and Domain ?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

USA “ left” = centre right in any other reality

There is no evidence they censor one political perspective , they censure lies ,adhominen stuff and incitement

What’s the issue. Recently some “ guy” incited a riot , he was censored , big deal
( this isn’t my opinion , this is what they said )

Apart from my comment to you about yourTrump rants, everything else I have said has been UK related.. what happens in the US is amusing to me in the main just as what happens in the UK is amusing to them.. irrelevant little island that we are..

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

USA “ left” = centre right in any other reality

There is no evidence they censor one political perspective , they censure lies ,adhominen stuff and incitement

What’s the issue. Recently some “ guy” incited a riot , he was censored , big deal
( this isn’t my opinion , this is what they said )

Right () on all counts. The main political spectrum in the US ranges from centre-right to Genghis Khan. Any of the public so-called "socialists" would barely fit into our Liberal (centrist) party, let alone come close to the New Democrats (an actual lefty party).

Social media platforms don't censor based on political bias. They censor based on economics. Despite the noise some make, they don't represent the majority of Americans. These platforms calculate it is better to piss of the vocal minority. It's that simple.

So they enforce basic rules of civility, and also frown upon outright lying and calls to incite illegal actions -- much like CF's own rules.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

I find a huge degree of irony when I see folks posting on a forum like this, that only exists because they aren't subject to the difficulty and cost of regulation and liability for user generated content, advocating for a future where forums like this would all instantly cease to be viable and go out of business. In no universe does the owner of CF have the resources to comply with regulations making them liable for what anyone posts and still have the ability to be profitable or in any way viable. Its a marginal business as it is with volunteer moderators. To maintain an acceptable risk level they'd need to hold every post for review before letting it become viewable to the public which would be massively expensive and completely unworkable. And they would still be legally able to "censor" any viewpoint they wished, in fact their liability would force them to censor dramatically more.

I don't think that most people (even here) are concerned with regulating the CFs of the world. All your points regarding CF are valid, and the sort of light moderation practiced here seems to be effective. Let it also be noted that we as CF users share the responsibility for maintaining the intent and tone of this forum, both in our own conduct, and in flagging content that's inappropriate or breaks forum rules.

Unless I am seriously mistaken, I believe the OP is referring to the censorship of mainstream and overwhelmingly influential platforms like Facebook, and to what extent they are the "publisher" and therefore responsible. It should also be pointed out that the OP quotes someone from the "Hoover Institution" which is a right-leaning think tank, who is no doubt making the free-speech (1st amendment) and limited government argument against censorship, but is also maybe standing up for some of the right-wing sites who've been on the receiving end.

The conservative establishment wasn't exactly averse to censorship when it suited them. The 80s weren't that long ago...

Be careful what you all wish for. Don't let politics and anger lead to destruction of communities like this one just because no one actually thought through the actual implications from the perspective of those running a forum like this one.

Again, I don't think CF is in the crosshairs here.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...
Again, I don't think CF is in the crosshairs here.

Of course it’s not , nor are the thousands of focused forums and social media implementations that are actively moderated to remain broadly on topic

What is being referred to are platforms that support massive lies conspiracy theories and gratuitous adhominen attacks . You only have to read the comments sections of some of these blogs and media sites to see unrestrained hate speech.

To tar the whole of social media with one brush is rather ridiculous


The EU regards large social media organisation increasingly as “ publishers “ who should both pay for copy right content and be responsible for it. Personally I think the strategy is correct. ( by and large)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The EU regards large social media organisation increasingly as “ publishers “ who should both pay for copy right content and be responsible for it.

I don't know if it's that clear yet. Facebook is a walled garden, which offers a simpler, easier online way to connect and share with family and friends, and to encounter other people and ideas that seem to align with the user. (-cough- echo chamber ). There's no cost, except for the user's agreement that FB can do all sorts of things with the information they get from the user, including selling it to others... even if this enables others to influence or mislead the user. It's not yet clear whether this is the moral equivalent of publishing, or if there are any obligations towards controlling who buys the information and how they use it.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't know if it's that clear yet. Facebook is a walled garden, which offers a simpler, easier online way to connect and share with family and friends, and to encounter other people and ideas that seem to align with the user. (-cough- echo chamber ). There's no cost, except for the user's agreement that FB can do all sorts of things with the information they get from the user, including selling it to others... even if this enables others to influence or mislead the user. It's not yet clear whether this is the moral equivalent of publishing, or if there are any obligations towards controlling who buys the information and how they use it.

I agree the issue isn’t clear cut. But the broad trust of EU policy and increasing law in this area is to increasingly treat such operations as publishers rather then mere facilitators. this is in contrast to the USA , Section 230 revocation not withstanding )

It’s rather ironic that people support revoking 230 dont see they are killing the thing they want.

Of course it’s only vengeance driven rather then thought out thinking.

[Paul L]

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.

In the US the constitutional guaranteed freedom of speech in the first amendment is limited to not being infringed by the government. It has nothing to do with private companies, like CF, Twitter or FB.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't think that most people (even here) are concerned with regulating the CFs of the world. All your points regarding CF are valid, and the sort of light moderation practiced here seems to be effective. Let it also be noted that we as CF users share the responsibility for maintaining the intent and tone of this forum, both in our own conduct, and in flagging content that's inappropriate or breaks forum rules.

Unless I am seriously mistaken, I believe the OP is referring to the censorship of mainstream and overwhelmingly influential platforms like Facebook, and to what extent they are the "publisher" and therefore responsible. It should also be pointed out that the OP quotes someone from the "Hoover Institution" which is a right-leaning think tank, who is no doubt making the free-speech (1st amendment) and limited government argument against censorship, but is also maybe standing up for some of the right-wing sites who've been on the receiving end.

The conservative establishment wasn't exactly averse to censorship when it suited them. The 80s weren't that long ago...
Again, I don't think CF is in the crosshairs here.

I may have been too subtle. Section 230 is what protects the CFs of the world and allows them to exist. Without it they will all go away in short order, for the reasons I articulated. So if you're advocating for Section 230 appeal you're advocating for eliminating the very forum you're using to advocate!

So we carve out an exception for who, web sites that aren't "influential" or "mainstream"? Who decides the definition of that? If we make the platforms you listed liable for their content, they too become untenable and simply go away. And then the universe gets splintered with platforms who all take measures to remain just below whatever threshold we decided was "mainstream" until it gets down to CF level. After all, if you use the terms used in antitrust law, CF is in fact dominant in it's field of online forums for cruisers.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

I may have been too subtle. Section 230 is what protects the CFs of the world and allows them to exist. Without it they will all go away in short order, for the reasons I articulated. So if you're advocating for Section 230 appeal you're advocating for eliminating the very forum you're using to advocate!



So we carve out an exception for who, web sites that aren't "influential" or "mainstream"? Who decides the definition of that? If we make the platforms you listed liable for their content, they too become untenable and simply go away. And then the universe gets splintered with platforms who all take measures to remain just below whatever threshold we decided was "mainstream" until it gets down to CF level. After all, if you use the terms used in antitrust law, CF is in fact dominant in it's field of online forums for cruisers.

I think this is a very US centric perspective , large social media platforms would simply abandon being established legally in the US if section 230 was repealed ( and it clearly isn’t )

Personally I’m uncomfortable with the notion of unrestricted free speech , I would always subscribe to the notion that every freedom comes with a corresponding responsibility. Striking that balance is above my pay grade.

Equally I would support certain limits and restrictions on content platforms. Again greater minds then mine are needed draw the “ lines “

In that respect our little constitution contains

“
i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the state “

The interpretation of this being the Supreme Court.

The main thing is that you can’t use free speech to incite violence or engage in sedition

Interesting it was tricky constitutionally to ban “ hate speech “ in Ireland and we got used as a centre of such distribution for a while till the laws were changed.

Note the specific mention of “ public opinion “. I can express my opinions as I wish but limits are there if I try to influence “ public opinion “

[sandy stone]

Originally Posted by Paul L

In the US the constitutional guaranteed freedom of speech in the first amendment is limited to not being infringed by the government. It has nothing to do with private companies, like CF, Twitter or FB.

Excellent point.

[goboatingnow]

Interestingly the European headquarters and legal establishment for both Facebook and Twitter are in Dublin. ( twitters is in excess of 100,000 sq feet so it’s no brass plate job , Facebooks presence is enormous too ) Clearly both feel comfortable with the legal protections so advanced to be based here. I doubt if removing section 230 would have much affect in reality.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

I may have been too subtle. Section 230 is what protects the CFs of the world and allows them to exist.

What's Section 230 and how does it affect me and the websites I manage none of which are homed in the US. If I want to host a new CF, Section 230 is totally irrelevant.

[Pelagic]

There is one form of Censorship that I wholeheartedly support.
...and that is the enforcement of the "Be Nice Rule"!

If you cannot get your message across without ..

...Purposely using inflammatory words.
...Accusing rather than asking for Clarity....
....Insulting rhetoric rather than polite reason.
....any form of disrespect

Then dont respond in kind if you feel baited by the above

Sonetimes we really aren't mature enough to manage a virtual conversation gone bad and we need to step back

The CF Mods do a great job on defusing this... but if they have to shut down this really contentious topic on freedom of online speech, it would be a shame

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by StuM

What's Section 230 and how does it affect me and the websites I manage none of which are homed in the US. If I want to host a new CF, Section 230 is totally irrelevant.

It's irrelevant as long as you do not offer your service in the US.

[GordMay]

Section 230 of the U.S. “Communications Decency Act”, which was passed in 1996, says an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content.

This protects websites from lawsuits, if a user posts something illegal, although there are exceptions for copyright violations, sex work-related material, and violations of federal criminal law.

Similar legislation exists in the European Union and Australia.

Facebook, for instance, has called for more government regulation.
In February 2020, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the company ought to be regulated as something in between a telecommunications company and a newspaper [1]. That same day, Facebook released a white paper [2] laying out the approach it would prefer regulators take.

[1] “Treat us like something between a telco and a newspaper, says Facebook's Zuckerberg”
➥ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKBN2090MA

[2] “Online Content Regulation: CHARTING A WAY FORWARD” ~ by Monika Bickert (Facebook)
➥ https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uplo...te-Paper-1.pdf