6 ms·

You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate the F

You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate the First Amendment? And, thank God for 1A, given the enormous amount of interest people have in limiting speech.

gruez 6y ago
>You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate the First Amendment? Yet FCC is still around regulating speech on broadcast television.
- shripadk 6y ago
  Because broadcast media is a publisher. Does Facebook want to call itself a publisher? If it does then I am sure FCC will regulate Facebook too. Right now all social media platforms are shielded by Section 230. They are platforms and not liable to what is posted on their platforms. But, some social media companies like Twitter have taken on the mantle of a publisher by mucking around with the US President's tweets. This has now set a precedent. Tomorrow Trump may or may not be in office. But Twitter will continue to exist. Will it continue to edit/censor Presidents and Prime Ministers around the World? If Twitter acquires those powers for itself without any regulatory oversight then you have an unofficial Supranational Government: Social Media.
  - untog 6y ago
    > Does Facebook want to call itself a publisher? I'm quite sure it doesn't want to call itself one. But once it made an algorithmic feed it decided to have a hand in what users do and do not see. It's not unreasonable to ask for some accountability in what that algorithm does, and such accountability is definitely not a violation of the first amendment. > Will it continue to edit/censor Presidents and Prime Ministers Point of clarification here: Twitter censored and edited absolutely nothing. They attached a warning to Trump's tweet. It is still available for all to read in its entirety.
    - shripadk 6y ago
      > Point of clarification here: Twitter censored and edited absolutely nothing. They attached a warning to Trump's tweet. It is still available for all to read in its entirety. No Twitter actually removed a video[1] that Trump posted. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/twitter-labels-video-tweeted-trump-manipulated-media-n1231511 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/twitter-labels...
      - untog 6y ago
        > in response to a copyright claim from one of the children’s parents So they didn't remove it because of their own demands for censorship, they removed it because the DMCA required them to.
        shripadk 6y ago
        Does DMCA really require them to do so? Doesn't it fall under fair use? Do memes also attract DMCA notices now? How about this Nickelback meme that was removed from Trump's tweet: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/twitter-nixes-trump-nickelback-meme-after-dubious-takedown-request/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/twitter-nixes-tr... Are you actually telling me that this doesn't constitute fair use? If this doesn't constitute fair use then Twitter will have to delete a billion tweets that use the same meme. Will Twitter be fair in its policy and remove all of them?
        gruez 6y ago
        > Does DMCA really require them to do so? Doesn't it fall under fair use? Yes, if they want to keep their safe harbor protections. If they think it's fair use, refuse to comply with the DMCA notice, and it turns out it wasn't fair use, they're now liable as infringers.
        shripadk 6y ago
        > Yes, if they want to keep their safe harbor protections. If they think it's fair use, refuse to comply with the DMCA notice, and it turns out it wasn't fair use, they're now liable as infringers. But that is not as simple as it sounds. If you issue a DMCA counter-notice there is no compulsion for the service provider to honor the counter-notice. In fact, the default is to deny the counter claim because of contractual obligations between the service provider and the first party. You can read more about it here: https://www.newmediarights.org/copyright/DMCA/youtube_refusing_honor_dmca_counter_notices https://www.newmediarights.org/copyright/DMCA/youtube_refusi...
  - shuntress 6y ago
    They are _very_ clearly acting as publishers as well. When you connect to twitter do you see the same monolithic platform that everyone else sees before you each sort it as you please? Of course not. You see a specific-as-possible individual experience published just for you. Edit: Twitter clearly needs and should have the ability to manage the content they publish. But they also clearly function like a platform in significant ways. It does not make sense to try to argue that Twitter is either a platform or a publisher and nothing in between
    - shripadk 6y ago
      > They are _very_ clearly acting as publishers as well. Then they should be held liable for every post/tweet that goes on their platform! Will they be willing to accept that liability like the media houses do? You can sue the media house if it posts something that is false. You can't sue Facebook for a post someone put on it. Facebook will call itself a platform and deny taking liability for someone's post. > It does not make sense to try to argue that Twitter is either a platform or a publisher and nothing in between It does make sense. Your nature of business defines the regulations that apply on you. I can't start a software business today and 3 years later arbitrarily decide to convert it to a defense manufacturing company and still hope to retain the same regulatory rules that apply for software companies. There are regulatory policies for every company based on its nature of business. You are creating a monster if you allow these social media companies to have all sorts of policies without any regulatory oversight! EDIT: > You see a specific-as-possible individual experience published just for you. Yes and it still is a platform because the functionality (personal recommendations) is built into the platform as a feature right? It is a AI tool that recommends a feed based on your likes and dislikes. Is this the same as publishing? Nope. With publishing you have a process where posts are edited, verified and then shown to the public. There is some notion of "trust". So when I watch news I know that the news channel has not just curated, but also verified and then is showing me the content that I can then consume. That verification step is essential and is what separates a "Publisher" from a "Platform". Twitter never "verified" the feed right? It just curated it. As a platform it can only "moderate" based on its policies that prohibit certain acts that are illegal by law: like sharing child pornography or calling for violence or gambling. This is required by law and that is where moderation tools come into play. Twitter, by censoring/editing/attaching information to Trump's tweet is behaving as a "publisher" by actually verifying the content of the tweet in question. It does not fall under "moderation" as there is nothing there that is illegal for them to moderate. The feed I consume through personal recommendations is curated but still unverified. I still have to figure out for myself if the post/tweet in question is correct or incorrect. The onus of verification rests with me, the user. That is why it is a platform. The onus of verification in case of media channels rest with the channel. Because they are operating on the notion of "trust". That as a consumer of their content I have trust in what they show me. I don't need to verify. That trust is broken if they start lying. They can lie and spread fake news. But they will be held liable for it. That is why they are a publisher and have to go through the headache of verifying the news before it is broadcast to the public. Twitter is like a post office. You send mails via post, you expect the postman to deliver the post to the nearest post office, which sorts and aggregates those posts and then pushes those posts to the relevant po box for dispatch. Imagine if the post office started to open the mails and tamper with the messaging. Would you be okay with it? The post office can only open posts if they find something criminal and that also has to be done in a systematic manner: An authority should be present while the post is being opened, every step is to be recorded, the items within the post should be carefully handled and recorded all the way up until the post is sealed. And then the authority must sign off by saying that the post did not contain anything bad (like drugs/weapons whatever that is declared illegal in that jurisdiction). That is the only powers a post office has. Now imagine if the post office started messing with the posts. Imagine if you were running for election and you distribute flyers through postal mail. One of the employees in the post office doesn't agree with your ideology and decides to tamper with the flyer. Instead of modifying the flyer he attaches a sticky note with his own comments so whoever reads the flyer will also read the sticky note. Would this not be considered tampering with the messaging? How is Twitter attaching a notice to Trump's tweet any different from this? Only difference is that it is virtual and not physical?
sevencolors 6y ago
Why is this so hard to understand? https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- bryan_w 6y ago
  I'm not sure I understand. Why do you think that cartoon relates to the idea of the government regulating FB to block Trump's account?
randompwd 6y ago
Remember how Facebook operates around the world. Not just USA.
Barrin92 6y ago
that's not true at all. this congressional report[1] outlines the capacity of the government to regulate speech. "However, the fact that a law affects speech protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is unconstitutional. As explained below, the First Amendment allows some regulation of speech and does not prohibit regulation of conduct.[...]" If a law does regulate speech, a court would consider the type of speech being regulated to determine how closely to scrutinize the regulation. For example, a court may ask whether that speech is commercial and, as such, deserving of less protection under the First Amendment.[...] Certain categories of speech receive even less protection than commercial speech. For example, the Supreme Court has said that states may prohibit speech advocating violence if that “advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Thus, certain types of threatening or violent speech posted on social media may not be entitled to First Amendment protection" And also concerning internet platforms in particular: "A court might also look to the particular nature of the medium being regulated, asking whether there are special characteristics that might justify greater regulation. The Supreme Court has said that “[e]ach medium of expression . . . must be assessed for First Amendment purposes by standards suited to it, for each may present its own problems.”" So there's considerable complexity to the regulation of speech. It's not at all a binary issue. [1]https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45650.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45650.pdf

gruez 6y ago

>You do realize that regulating Facebook and other social media companies in order to force them to limit speech on their platforms would expressly violate the First Amendment? Yet FCC is still around regulating speech on broadcast television.

shripadk 6y ago
Because broadcast media is a publisher. Does Facebook want to call itself a publisher? If it does then I am sure FCC will regulate Facebook too. Right now all social media platforms are shielded by Section 230. They are platforms and not liable to what is posted on their platforms. But, some social media companies like Twitter have taken on the mantle of a publisher by mucking around with the US President's tweets. This has now set a precedent. Tomorrow Trump may or may not be in office. But Twitter will continue to exist. Will it continue to edit/censor Presidents and Prime Ministers around the World? If Twitter acquires those powers for itself without any regulatory oversight then you have an unofficial Supranational Government: Social Media.
- untog 6y ago
  > Does Facebook want to call itself a publisher? I'm quite sure it doesn't want to call itself one. But once it made an algorithmic feed it decided to have a hand in what users do and do not see. It's not unreasonable to ask for some accountability in what that algorithm does, and such accountability is definitely not a violation of the first amendment. > Will it continue to edit/censor Presidents and Prime Ministers Point of clarification here: Twitter censored and edited absolutely nothing. They attached a warning to Trump's tweet. It is still available for all to read in its entirety.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > Point of clarification here: Twitter censored and edited absolutely nothing. They attached a warning to Trump's tweet. It is still available for all to read in its entirety. No Twitter actually removed a video[1] that Trump posted. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/twitter-labels-video-tweeted-trump-manipulated-media-n1231511 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/twitter-labels...
    - untog 6y ago
      > in response to a copyright claim from one of the children’s parents So they didn't remove it because of their own demands for censorship, they removed it because the DMCA required them to.
      - shripadk 6y ago
        Does DMCA really require them to do so? Doesn't it fall under fair use? Do memes also attract DMCA notices now? How about this Nickelback meme that was removed from Trump's tweet: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/twitter-nixes-trump-nickelback-meme-after-dubious-takedown-request/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/twitter-nixes-tr... Are you actually telling me that this doesn't constitute fair use? If this doesn't constitute fair use then Twitter will have to delete a billion tweets that use the same meme. Will Twitter be fair in its policy and remove all of them?
        gruez 6y ago
        > Does DMCA really require them to do so? Doesn't it fall under fair use? Yes, if they want to keep their safe harbor protections. If they think it's fair use, refuse to comply with the DMCA notice, and it turns out it wasn't fair use, they're now liable as infringers.
        shripadk 6y ago
        > Yes, if they want to keep their safe harbor protections. If they think it's fair use, refuse to comply with the DMCA notice, and it turns out it wasn't fair use, they're now liable as infringers. But that is not as simple as it sounds. If you issue a DMCA counter-notice there is no compulsion for the service provider to honor the counter-notice. In fact, the default is to deny the counter claim because of contractual obligations between the service provider and the first party. You can read more about it here: https://www.newmediarights.org/copyright/DMCA/youtube_refusing_honor_dmca_counter_notices https://www.newmediarights.org/copyright/DMCA/youtube_refusi...
- shuntress 6y ago
  They are _very_ clearly acting as publishers as well. When you connect to twitter do you see the same monolithic platform that everyone else sees before you each sort it as you please? Of course not. You see a specific-as-possible individual experience published just for you. Edit: Twitter clearly needs and should have the ability to manage the content they publish. But they also clearly function like a platform in significant ways. It does not make sense to try to argue that Twitter is either a platform or a publisher and nothing in between
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > They are _very_ clearly acting as publishers as well. Then they should be held liable for every post/tweet that goes on their platform! Will they be willing to accept that liability like the media houses do? You can sue the media house if it posts something that is false. You can't sue Facebook for a post someone put on it. Facebook will call itself a platform and deny taking liability for someone's post. > It does not make sense to try to argue that Twitter is either a platform or a publisher and nothing in between It does make sense. Your nature of business defines the regulations that apply on you. I can't start a software business today and 3 years later arbitrarily decide to convert it to a defense manufacturing company and still hope to retain the same regulatory rules that apply for software companies. There are regulatory policies for every company based on its nature of business. You are creating a monster if you allow these social media companies to have all sorts of policies without any regulatory oversight! EDIT: > You see a specific-as-possible individual experience published just for you. Yes and it still is a platform because the functionality (personal recommendations) is built into the platform as a feature right? It is a AI tool that recommends a feed based on your likes and dislikes. Is this the same as publishing? Nope. With publishing you have a process where posts are edited, verified and then shown to the public. There is some notion of "trust". So when I watch news I know that the news channel has not just curated, but also verified and then is showing me the content that I can then consume. That verification step is essential and is what separates a "Publisher" from a "Platform". Twitter never "verified" the feed right? It just curated it. As a platform it can only "moderate" based on its policies that prohibit certain acts that are illegal by law: like sharing child pornography or calling for violence or gambling. This is required by law and that is where moderation tools come into play. Twitter, by censoring/editing/attaching information to Trump's tweet is behaving as a "publisher" by actually verifying the content of the tweet in question. It does not fall under "moderation" as there is nothing there that is illegal for them to moderate. The feed I consume through personal recommendations is curated but still unverified. I still have to figure out for myself if the post/tweet in question is correct or incorrect. The onus of verification rests with me, the user. That is why it is a platform. The onus of verification in case of media channels rest with the channel. Because they are operating on the notion of "trust". That as a consumer of their content I have trust in what they show me. I don't need to verify. That trust is broken if they start lying. They can lie and spread fake news. But they will be held liable for it. That is why they are a publisher and have to go through the headache of verifying the news before it is broadcast to the public. Twitter is like a post office. You send mails via post, you expect the postman to deliver the post to the nearest post office, which sorts and aggregates those posts and then pushes those posts to the relevant po box for dispatch. Imagine if the post office started to open the mails and tamper with the messaging. Would you be okay with it? The post office can only open posts if they find something criminal and that also has to be done in a systematic manner: An authority should be present while the post is being opened, every step is to be recorded, the items within the post should be carefully handled and recorded all the way up until the post is sealed. And then the authority must sign off by saying that the post did not contain anything bad (like drugs/weapons whatever that is declared illegal in that jurisdiction). That is the only powers a post office has. Now imagine if the post office started messing with the posts. Imagine if you were running for election and you distribute flyers through postal mail. One of the employees in the post office doesn't agree with your ideology and decides to tamper with the flyer. Instead of modifying the flyer he attaches a sticky note with his own comments so whoever reads the flyer will also read the sticky note. Would this not be considered tampering with the messaging? How is Twitter attaching a notice to Trump's tweet any different from this? Only difference is that it is virtual and not physical?

sevencolors 6y ago

Why is this so hard to understand? https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

bryan_w 6y ago
I'm not sure I understand. Why do you think that cartoon relates to the idea of the government regulating FB to block Trump's account?

randompwd 6y ago

Remember how Facebook operates around the world. Not just USA.

Barrin92 6y ago

that's not true at all. this congressional report[1] outlines the capacity of the government to regulate speech. "However, the fact that a law affects speech protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is unconstitutional. As explained below, the First Amendment allows some regulation of speech and does not prohibit regulation of conduct.[...]" If a law does regulate speech, a court would consider the type of speech being regulated to determine how closely to scrutinize the regulation. For example, a court may ask whether that speech is commercial and, as such, deserving of less protection under the First Amendment.[...] Certain categories of speech receive even less protection than commercial speech. For example, the Supreme Court has said that states may prohibit speech advocating violence if that “advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Thus, certain types of threatening or violent speech posted on social media may not be entitled to First Amendment protection" And also concerning internet platforms in particular: "A court might also look to the particular nature of the medium being regulated, asking whether there are special characteristics that might justify greater regulation. The Supreme Court has said that “[e]ach medium of expression . . . must be assessed for First Amendment purposes by standards suited to it, for each may present its own problems.”" So there's considerable complexity to the regulation of speech. It's not at all a binary issue. [1]https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45650.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45650.pdf