4 ms·

"Communications Decency Act, which says that internet companies are not responsible for what is posted on their platforms" So Pelosi opposes this and thinks "i

by Para2016 7y ago

"Communications Decency Act, which says that internet companies are not responsible for what is posted on their platforms" So Pelosi opposes this and thinks "internet companies" should be held accountable and monitor every single communication or media file posted on a website/platform. So it's just private censorship mandated by the government. Pretty unoriginal work around to suppressing free speech.

beezischillin 7y ago
This is only my subjective opinion but it seems to me that this is nothing more than electioneering, feeling around for an issue to run on, throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks since they don’t seem to have a marketable enough issue to congregate behind for next year.
monkeydreams 7y ago
Do you feel that they should be held to a different standard to every other media? Television stations are responsible for what is televised, radio stations for what they broadcast, newspapers for what they print - but somehow internet companies are not responsible for what they store and communicate due to the number of messages they must monitor? OK, that's fine, we'll treat them like common carriers and regulate them.
- Gigablah 7y ago
  > Television stations are responsible for what is televised This is news to me.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Are print shops responsible for the leaflets printed in them? Are phone companies responsible for the content of the conversations that take place over their lines?
  - monkeydreams 7y ago
    > Are print shops responsible for the leaflets printed in them? A case could be made that, yes, they are if the leaflets are obviously threatening. > Are phone companies responsible for the content of the conversations that take place over their lines? No, but they are responsible for a) not self-editorialising them (which Twitter, Facebook, etc are) and b) are responsible for assisting investigations where such crimes take place. Facebook cannot even tell who is paying for their advertisements. This wouldn't fly for a telecoms company.
- toast0 7y ago
  Television and radio are heavily regulated in part because there is limited spectrum set aside for broadcasts. Television, radio, and newspapers exert a great amount of editorial control. Common carrier is a great model for this. AT&T isn't responsible for the content of phone calls, and they also don't exert any editorial control over them. Many popular platforms are kind of trying to be free to do whatever, but also exert editorial control, which seems untenable. Disclaimer: i work for a silicon valley company; opinions are mine, not my employers.
  - monkeydreams 7y ago
    > AT&T isn't responsible for the content of phone calls, and they also don't exert any editorial control over them. AT&T is a common carrier for mobile and voice services so I'm not sure why you are raising them as a counter example. While they are not responsible for the content that is sent on their network, they do work with law enforcement and the intelligence community to ensure that specific crimes which occur only over telecommunications (i.e. threatening someone over the phone) can be investigated and proscecuted. > and they also don't exert any editorial control over them. Also, this is a requirement of being a common carrier. They have to send everything from A to B regardless of (lawful) content. Facebook, Twitter, et al, seemingly want to create an environment in which they can self-editorialise but are not held up to even the basic standards of a common carrier.
    - sjg007 7y ago
      Ahh but they are not common carriers for mobile since they prioritize traffic.
      - monkeydreams 7y ago
        A correction to what I said - they are not common carrier for mobile data. They are common carriers for mobile voice communications. There is a whole series of FTC v AT&T lawsuits which outline this argument and the extent to which they are subject to FTC regulation, if you're interested.
DuskStar 7y ago
And the funny thing is, that's not what CDA 230 does... If a company does no moderation whatsoever, they aren't liable for the content posted, and that's been the case for decades. It's why AT&T doesn't get sued every time someone plots a murder on the phone. CDA 230 just said that you don't become the publisher and assume liability for moderation.
- mtgx 7y ago
  I guess the difference might be that Google and FB want to become publishers while pretending to remain neutral platforms just to continue to remain under this law.
bobthepanda 7y ago
Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and the like do filter what is recommended to a person though; that is a form of editorial control, even if it‘s mostly just algorithms behind the scenes. If they were neutral platforms just showing you what you‘ve specifically searched or followed then that would make them more of a common carrier. But the recommendations are an issue.

beezischillin 7y ago

This is only my subjective opinion but it seems to me that this is nothing more than electioneering, feeling around for an issue to run on, throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks since they don’t seem to have a marketable enough issue to congregate behind for next year.

monkeydreams 7y ago

Do you feel that they should be held to a different standard to every other media? Television stations are responsible for what is televised, radio stations for what they broadcast, newspapers for what they print - but somehow internet companies are not responsible for what they store and communicate due to the number of messages they must monitor? OK, that's fine, we'll treat them like common carriers and regulate them.

Gigablah 7y ago
> Television stations are responsible for what is televised This is news to me.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Are print shops responsible for the leaflets printed in them? Are phone companies responsible for the content of the conversations that take place over their lines?
- monkeydreams 7y ago
  > Are print shops responsible for the leaflets printed in them? A case could be made that, yes, they are if the leaflets are obviously threatening. > Are phone companies responsible for the content of the conversations that take place over their lines? No, but they are responsible for a) not self-editorialising them (which Twitter, Facebook, etc are) and b) are responsible for assisting investigations where such crimes take place. Facebook cannot even tell who is paying for their advertisements. This wouldn't fly for a telecoms company.
toast0 7y ago
Television and radio are heavily regulated in part because there is limited spectrum set aside for broadcasts. Television, radio, and newspapers exert a great amount of editorial control. Common carrier is a great model for this. AT&T isn't responsible for the content of phone calls, and they also don't exert any editorial control over them. Many popular platforms are kind of trying to be free to do whatever, but also exert editorial control, which seems untenable. Disclaimer: i work for a silicon valley company; opinions are mine, not my employers.
- monkeydreams 7y ago
  > AT&T isn't responsible for the content of phone calls, and they also don't exert any editorial control over them. AT&T is a common carrier for mobile and voice services so I'm not sure why you are raising them as a counter example. While they are not responsible for the content that is sent on their network, they do work with law enforcement and the intelligence community to ensure that specific crimes which occur only over telecommunications (i.e. threatening someone over the phone) can be investigated and proscecuted. > and they also don't exert any editorial control over them. Also, this is a requirement of being a common carrier. They have to send everything from A to B regardless of (lawful) content. Facebook, Twitter, et al, seemingly want to create an environment in which they can self-editorialise but are not held up to even the basic standards of a common carrier.
  - sjg007 7y ago
    Ahh but they are not common carriers for mobile since they prioritize traffic.
    - monkeydreams 7y ago
      A correction to what I said - they are not common carrier for mobile data. They are common carriers for mobile voice communications. There is a whole series of FTC v AT&T lawsuits which outline this argument and the extent to which they are subject to FTC regulation, if you're interested.

DuskStar 7y ago

And the funny thing is, that's not what CDA 230 does... If a company does no moderation whatsoever, they aren't liable for the content posted, and that's been the case for decades. It's why AT&T doesn't get sued every time someone plots a murder on the phone. CDA 230 just said that you don't become the publisher and assume liability for moderation.

mtgx 7y ago
I guess the difference might be that Google and FB want to become publishers while pretending to remain neutral platforms just to continue to remain under this law.

bobthepanda 7y ago

Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and the like do filter what is recommended to a person though; that is a form of editorial control, even if it‘s mostly just algorithms behind the scenes. If they were neutral platforms just showing you what you‘ve specifically searched or followed then that would make them more of a common carrier. But the recommendations are an issue.