7 ms·

Newspapers and magazines have always had a choice who or what to print in their papers. TV and radio stations have always had a choice who or what to air. Why s

Newspapers and magazines have always had a choice who or what to print in their papers. TV and radio stations have always had a choice who or what to air. Why shouldn't social media companies have the same liberties?

ralph84 6y ago
Social media companies are protected by Section 230 while newspapers and magazines aren't. If social media companies are going to act like newspapers and magazines then they shouldn't be shielded from liability for their content.
- nathankunicki 6y ago
  Which is a fair comment to make, but ultimately without the protection of Section 230, Twitter or Facebook would have never allowed Trump on the platform in the first place. The risk of being held accountable (ie. lawsuits, defamation suits, etc) for the content he posted would have been too great. Removing Section 230 wouldn't have the effect people like to think it would.
- lovecg 6y ago
  So in other words you want them to remove even more content (no one wants to be held liable for Trump’s tweets)? Sounds pro-censorship to me.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  Online newspapers and magazines frequently allow comments from readers, and they are absolutely protected by section 230 for the same reason that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are.
drtillberg 6y ago
There was no "network effect" deterring me from dropping the NYT. These social media platforms, and the internet in general-- which are entirely "private"-- are the new public square. Twitter, Facebook, et al just excluded leading conservative voices from the public square.
- nathankunicki 6y ago
  Then nationalize them or make them a public and/or Government agency (in a fair market fashion, by petitioning the Government to make them an offer to buy them out). But as long as they're a private company they get the same protections and liberties as all the rest.
- jkelleyrtp 6y ago
  They are not a public square. They are not the government. They are a private company that needs to do business to stay alive. Other companies can choose not to do business with them based on the content that's on their site. If they fail to satisfy their customers, they die. They cannot satisfy the whims of those who pay nothing and demand a megaphone. They owe you, and your beliefs, nothing.
  - drtillberg 6y ago
    Civilized (and sometimes boorish) people today go to the Internet to communicate. That's what we're doing right now. Maybe if you (or I) were banned from HN, no big deal, find some other corner of the Internet to shout from. FB and Twitter are the modern public fora however, they have through moats or whatever business tactics, made other fora far less significant, and in terms of discussion space they are a very big deal. You might be correctly repeating legal principles as they appear in last year's hornbook, however, the books will eventually change. If Cloudflare and Google together delisted and deplatformed anyone repeating any words of the President or major conservative leaders -- that would undermine a core tenet of our democratic society. That would be an obvious affront to first principles. I'm not sure FB and Twitter are greatly removed from that hypothetical.
    - 6y ago
djsumdog 6y ago
But it's different. There was a time when anyone could start a newspaper. There was a time when people had FM transmitters in their backyard. It became more expensive and the FCC started slicing up FM spectrum so everyone wouldn't trample over each other. Media was once free and then collapse to be owned by ABC, NBC, CBS and a few dozen newspapers. This was originally about network neutrality, but it applies to what we're seeing right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP_3WnJ42kw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP_3WnJ42kw
- nathankunicki 6y ago
  Anyone can start a social media network. Twitter has competition in the form of the relatively-new Parler, which has welcomed controversial voices - and has gained significant traction among them. You can feel free to create your own too. Social media platforms existed before Twitter and Facebook, and eventually other platforms will succeed Twitter and Facebook. Can it be expensive to start a company from scratch? Yes, it can. But that has always been the case.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    It's cheap to start a social network. I run a Pleroma and a Mastodon server and you can find the links in my profile. But don't fool yourself into thinking my little instances have any sort of effect compared to the big mega-corps of Google/Facebook and Twitter.
    - nathankunicki 6y ago
      I don't. Making something popular requires a tonne of work. Again, this has always been the case, even for traditional physical products. If you're going to make a competitor for something, expect an uphill battle. As I said, there were social networks before Twitter, Facebook, and Parler, and there will be social networks afterwards.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >But it's different. There was a time when anyone could start a newspaper starting a newspaper is significantly more costly and difficult than starting a social media app. You're confusing the fact that websites like Parler are so toxic that nobody wants to do business with them with the inability of actually starting it, which anyone with a laptop can do on a weekend.

ralph84 6y ago

Social media companies are protected by Section 230 while newspapers and magazines aren't. If social media companies are going to act like newspapers and magazines then they shouldn't be shielded from liability for their content.

nathankunicki 6y ago
Which is a fair comment to make, but ultimately without the protection of Section 230, Twitter or Facebook would have never allowed Trump on the platform in the first place. The risk of being held accountable (ie. lawsuits, defamation suits, etc) for the content he posted would have been too great. Removing Section 230 wouldn't have the effect people like to think it would.
lovecg 6y ago
So in other words you want them to remove even more content (no one wants to be held liable for Trump’s tweets)? Sounds pro-censorship to me.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
Online newspapers and magazines frequently allow comments from readers, and they are absolutely protected by section 230 for the same reason that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are.

drtillberg 6y ago

There was no "network effect" deterring me from dropping the NYT. These social media platforms, and the internet in general-- which are entirely "private"-- are the new public square. Twitter, Facebook, et al just excluded leading conservative voices from the public square.

nathankunicki 6y ago
Then nationalize them or make them a public and/or Government agency (in a fair market fashion, by petitioning the Government to make them an offer to buy them out). But as long as they're a private company they get the same protections and liberties as all the rest.
jkelleyrtp 6y ago
They are not a public square. They are not the government. They are a private company that needs to do business to stay alive. Other companies can choose not to do business with them based on the content that's on their site. If they fail to satisfy their customers, they die. They cannot satisfy the whims of those who pay nothing and demand a megaphone. They owe you, and your beliefs, nothing.
- drtillberg 6y ago
  Civilized (and sometimes boorish) people today go to the Internet to communicate. That's what we're doing right now. Maybe if you (or I) were banned from HN, no big deal, find some other corner of the Internet to shout from. FB and Twitter are the modern public fora however, they have through moats or whatever business tactics, made other fora far less significant, and in terms of discussion space they are a very big deal. You might be correctly repeating legal principles as they appear in last year's hornbook, however, the books will eventually change. If Cloudflare and Google together delisted and deplatformed anyone repeating any words of the President or major conservative leaders -- that would undermine a core tenet of our democratic society. That would be an obvious affront to first principles. I'm not sure FB and Twitter are greatly removed from that hypothetical.
  - 6y ago

djsumdog 6y ago

But it's different. There was a time when anyone could start a newspaper. There was a time when people had FM transmitters in their backyard. It became more expensive and the FCC started slicing up FM spectrum so everyone wouldn't trample over each other. Media was once free and then collapse to be owned by ABC, NBC, CBS and a few dozen newspapers. This was originally about network neutrality, but it applies to what we're seeing right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP_3WnJ42kw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP_3WnJ42kw

nathankunicki 6y ago
Anyone can start a social media network. Twitter has competition in the form of the relatively-new Parler, which has welcomed controversial voices - and has gained significant traction among them. You can feel free to create your own too. Social media platforms existed before Twitter and Facebook, and eventually other platforms will succeed Twitter and Facebook. Can it be expensive to start a company from scratch? Yes, it can. But that has always been the case.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  It's cheap to start a social network. I run a Pleroma and a Mastodon server and you can find the links in my profile. But don't fool yourself into thinking my little instances have any sort of effect compared to the big mega-corps of Google/Facebook and Twitter.
  - nathankunicki 6y ago
    I don't. Making something popular requires a tonne of work. Again, this has always been the case, even for traditional physical products. If you're going to make a competitor for something, expect an uphill battle. As I said, there were social networks before Twitter, Facebook, and Parler, and there will be social networks afterwards.
Barrin92 6y ago
>But it's different. There was a time when anyone could start a newspaper starting a newspaper is significantly more costly and difficult than starting a social media app. You're confusing the fact that websites like Parler are so toxic that nobody wants to do business with them with the inability of actually starting it, which anyone with a laptop can do on a weekend.