Trump Wants To Regulate Google

[The Frankish Reich]

50 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

Yup!!! If you provide a public service to the public, in a public forum you should be subject to those same Constitutional rules the public is subject to.

So ... someone posts something on this board. I dunno, something libelous about someone else. Everyone seems to be calling everyone a pedo, for example.

Should this board -- not the poster, the board -- be subject to a libel suit?

So you don't think this board performs a useful function such that in the balance of interests it should be immune from lawsuit by allowing libelous posters free rein?

https://reason.com/2020/09/16/new-fcc-nominee-has-already-been-helping-trump-try-to-censor-social-media/

(That's one example, but it's not as if the other side has been consistent on this issue either)

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So ... someone posts something on this board. I dunno, something libelous about someone else. Everyone seems to be calling everyone a pedo, for example.

Should this board -- not the poster, the board -- be subject to a libel suit?

So you don't think this board performs a useful function such that in the balance of interests it should be immune from lawsuit by allowing libelous posters free rein?

https://reason.com/2020/09/16/new-fcc-nominee-has-already-been-helping-trump-try-to-censor-social-media/

(That's one example, but it's not as if the other side has been consistent on this issue either)

 

You're twisting in the wind here since that is not the intent at all. It should be the individual held responsible for their own actions and speech. 

[The Frankish Reich]

6 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

You're twisting in the wind here since that is not the intent at all. It should be the individual held responsible for their own actions and speech. 

But the individual CAN be. Sure, he'd need to file a suit, serve a subpoena on the web host for the identity of the poster, find and serve the poster, and .... voila! - libel suit. 

What the law insulates is the host: twitter, TBD, etc. I take it you're not a lawyer, so I'll explain with an example:

Surely you've seen the stories of businesses suing a Yelp poster for libel based on a bad review: "they said we cooked the "vegan" sweet potato fries in animal fats; I have purchasing records to show that we have never used animal fats in my restaurant" or something like that. That's how it works. Poster potentially liable; Yelp not.

Edited September 16, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[BillsToast]

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So ... someone posts something on this board. I dunno, something libelous about someone else. Everyone seems to be calling everyone a pedo, for example.

Should this board -- not the poster, the board -- be subject to a libel suit?

So you don't think this board performs a useful function such that in the balance of interests it should be immune from lawsuit by allowing libelous posters free rein?

 

The problem is who determines libel or slander? Who gets to determine truth? 

 

To put it more practically a bunch of liberal interns become "arbiters of truth". That's a publisher, not a neutral party.

 

When the Chinese scientist on Twitter is trying to prove that the Coronavirus was made by a lab she was shut down. The "fact checkers" aren't scientists or doctors, which I thought was their criteria. When these companies determine was is true or not true from doctors and scientists, or determine political language is "Hate" then they are publishers.

 

Therefore either remove their right to be a neutral party and allow them to be sued or let people talk and let the individuals get sued. But you can't be both. 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

8 minutes ago, BillsToast said:

 

The problem is who determines libel or slander? Who gets to determine truth? 

 

To put it more practically a bunch of liberal interns become "arbiters of truth". That's a publisher, not a neutral party.

 

When the Chinese scientist on Twitter is trying to prove that the Coronavirus was made by a lab she was shut down. The "fact checkers" aren't scientists or doctors, which I thought was their criteria. When these companies determine was is true or not true from doctors and scientists, or determine political language is "Hate" then they are publishers.

 

Therefore either remove their right to be a neutral party and allow them to be sued or let people talk and let the individuals get sued. But you can't be both. 

 

 

First, let me say that I don't think Twitter should have taken down the Chinese scientist tweets you mention here. Others can respond with any concerns. But I don't think any purpose is served by cutting off debate. It's not some wild inflammatory statement. It will sink or swim on its own merits.

Second: I really, really don't want the government involved in telling Twitter what it must allow to be posted. If Twitter isn't treating you fairly, go to Parler or whatever, or start your Twitter competitor, or start your own blog and publish whatever you want (and have your friends and associates try to make it go viral). It's frustrating, but the government control of a private service is far more troubling that the actions of Twitter itself.

EDIT: remember, this is a "who's ox is being gored" issue. Right now many on the right are frustrated with Twitter and its often arbitrary decisions on what to take down. In the future the tables may be turned. Policy has to be created not just for the current environment.

Edited September 16, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[BillsToast]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

First, let me say that I don't think Twitter should have taken down the Chinese scientist tweets you mention here. Others can respond with any concerns. But I don't think any purpose is served by cutting off debate. It's not some wild inflammatory statement. It will sink or swim on its own merits.

Second: I really, really don't want the government involved in telling Twitter what it must allow to be posted. If Twitter isn't treating you fairly, go to Parler or whatever, or start your Twitter competitor, or start your own blog and publish whatever you want (and have your friends and associates try to make it go viral). It's frustrating, but the government control of a private service is far more troubling that the actions of Twitter itself.

 

Sure agreed,  but then relinquish your right to be immune from lawsuits. It works both ways. I don't care if Twitter blocks whomever they want if they violate a neutral TOS, but if you use the TOS, and create "fact checkers" to punish certain people than you lose neutrality. 

 

That simple. 

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, BillsToast said:

 

Sure agreed,  but then relinquish your right to be immune from lawsuits. It works both ways. I don't care if Twitter blocks whomever they want if they violate a neutral TOS, but if you use the TOS, and create "fact checkers" to punish certain people than you lose neutrality. 

 

That simple. 

Again -- I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Government involvement in what a private company is allowed to publish, what it must publish, or whether it can be found liable for not publishing is just a bridge too far. "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone." The casinos can ban me for being a great card counter (I wish). So too should online forums have the right to decide what content they want on their services.

[GG]

32 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Again -- I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Government involvement in what a private company is allowed to publish, what it must publish, or whether it can be found liable for not publishing is just a bridge too far. "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone." The casinos can ban me for being a great card counter (I wish). So too should online forums have the right to decide what content they want on their services.

 

Except that this is specifically the point of the argument.  All of these actions are meant to force the rewrite of Article 230 of the CDA.  The large Internet platforms are exploiting the ambiguous wording of the law, which was written before they were what they are now.  They are neither an ISP nor a true publisher, and are trying to apply the law to themselves that they can be both depending on the best interpretation for them. 

[Taro T]

46 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Again -- I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Government involvement in what a private company is allowed to publish, what it must publish, or whether it can be found liable for not publishing is just a bridge too far. "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone." The casinos can ban me for being a great card counter (I wish). So too should online forums have the right to decide what content they want on their services.

 

But the issue isn't whether the government is going to tell them what to publish; they aren't.  The issue is whether the government should treat them like an ISP which generally receives immunity from libel actions due to the content of their subscribers or if the government should treat them like a publisher with editorial oversight of what gets published on their platform and therefore be liable to libel suits.

 

They've enjoyed, and IMHO deserved, status as an ISP with the commensurate general immunity from libel.  But recently, there has been a decided appearance of acting in the role of editor/publisher.  Should that continue, then they absolutely should face the same scrutiny CNN or the WaPo or the Daily Caller recieve.  And should a citizen be libelled, they should face the consequences if they continue to act like the WaPo or other publishers.  They shouldn't get the benefits both ways.

 

Jack Dorsey & his buddies are going to goad either the FCC or Congress (maybe both) into clarifying the status of Twitter, Facebook, Parler, & the like; and everybody will likely lose but the playing field will be leveled again.

Edited September 16, 2020 by Taro T

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

 

But the issue isn't whether the government is going to tell them what to publish; they aren't.  The issue is whether the government should treat them like an ISP which generally receives immunity from libel actions due to the content of their subscribers or if the government should treat them like a publisher with editorial oversight of what gets published on their platform and therefore be liable to libel suits.

 

They've enjoyed, and IMHO deserved, status as an ISP with the commensurate general immunity from libel.  But recently, there has been a decided appearance of acting in the role of editor/publisher.  Should that continue, then they absolutely should face the same scrutiny CNN or the WaPo or the Daily Caller recieve.  And should a citizen be libelled, they should face the consequences if they continue to act like the WaPo or other publishers.  They shouldn't get the benefits both ways.

 

Jack Dorsey & his buddies are going to goad either the FCC or Congress (maybe both) into clarifying the status of Twitter, Facebook, Parker, & the like; and everybody will likely lose but the playing field will be leveled again.

You make a good point. If Twitter starts acting like a media company -- creating it's own content, or (I hate the word) curating it's content, they would arguably cross the line. But that's a far cry from what we have now. I have no idea of what percentage of tweets they take down, but it must be negligible.

 

I don't know your political opinions, but for those who support the current Administration: do you really want a Democratic administration (whenever that may come; sooner or later it always does) meddling in this?

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

You make a good point. If Twitter starts acting like a media company -- creating it's own content, or (I hate the word) curating it's content, they would arguably cross the line. But that's a far cry from what we have now. I have no idea of what percentage of tweets they take down, but it must be negligible.

 

I don't know your political opinions, but for those who support the current Administration: do you really want a Democratic administration (whenever that may come; sooner or later it always does) meddling in this?

 

My preference is for as little regulation as possible of the internet, regardless of the party in charge of the legislative &/or executive branch.

 

But, when a platform injects itself in politics, unless it sets TOS very clearly in a neutral way AND enforces them likewise, they are acting as publishers & should be treated accordingly.  So, they can do 1 or 2 things to stay out of court:

 

1. stay above the fray & treat all the political content in a similar manner (only removing/filtering it if it is obscene or if it violates copyright/other laws); or

 

2. carry water for their preferred politics & watch to make sure none of the billions of items on their site end up containing libelous material.

 

Suppose they could do both.  But seems from this vantage point that #1 is a lot easier & cheaper than #2.

 

And it SEEMS that Twitter definitely and Facebook (which yours truly avoids like the plague) to a lesser extent are curating their content when it comes to politics.  If they in fact are; then it won't be long until somebody reins them in &, again IMHO, everybody loses.

[GG]

41 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

You make a good point. If Twitter starts acting like a media company -- creating it's own content, or (I hate the word) curating it's content, they would arguably cross the line. But that's a far cry from what we have now. I have no idea of what percentage of tweets they take down, but it must be negligible.

 

I don't know your political opinions, but for those who support the current Administration: do you really want a Democratic administration (whenever that may come; sooner or later it always does) meddling in this?

 

They absolutely curate content that goes beyond the letter of the law in Section 230. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Trump said he is not prepared to sign off on the TikTok deal. He is being briefed tomorrow on it. He has to see what the deal said.

The treasury is not allowed to accept the money! Trump is saying the lawyers said they can't. Trump is like "Well, why not?"

(this is at the presser)



 

Edited September 16, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[The Frankish Reich]

52 minutes ago, GG said:

 

They absolutely curate content that goes beyond the letter of the law in Section 230. 

So why isn't anyone using Parler?

I demand you let me into your backyard to play!

 

[B-Man]

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

33 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So why isn't anyone using Parler?

I demand you let me into your backyard to play!

 

What does one thing have to do with the other? Because  parler and gab exist that means facebook and twitter do not have to abide by section 230 that they hide behind for litigation purposes?  That makes no sense at all.

[GG]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So why isn't anyone using Parler?

I demand you let me into your backyard to play!

 

 

Two unrelated things can be true at the same time.   People  migrating to Parler has nothing to do with the dominant platforms abusing a law.

[The Frankish Reich]

20 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Two unrelated things can be true at the same time.   People  migrating to Parler has nothing to do with the dominant platforms abusing a law.

Slippery, slippery slope. 

TBD bans that Spagnola guy for dissing the Bills, that's not content neutral! You can say the same things about the Jets and not get banned.

52 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

What does one thing have to do with the other? Because  parler and gab exist that means facebook and twitter do not have to abide by section 230 that they hide behind for litigation purposes?  That makes no sense at all.

The OP said "regulate google." So even assuming facebook and twitter could count as publishers (creating/curating content), I assume you'd agree that google search results are different? That's not being a publisher.

Other people say break up google under antitrust laws. Again, different legal theory, different remedy. Do you want that too?

[GG]

3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Slippery, slippery slope. 

TBD bans that Spagnola guy for dissing the Bills, that's not content neutral! You can say the same things about the Jets and not get banned.

The OP said "regulate google." So even assuming facebook and twitter could count as publishers (creating/curating content), I assume you'd agree that google search results are different? That's not being a publisher.

Other people say break up google under antitrust laws. Again, different legal theory, different remedy. Do you want that too?

 

You're conflating topics.  Search isn't publishing, but using search algorithms to steer the search results one way or another is abusing your position.   The Internet giants are doing everything they can to bring back the 1870's common carrier railroad regulations.   Sad.

[The Frankish Reich]

14 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You're conflating topics.  Search isn't publishing, but using search algorithms to steer the search results one way or another is abusing your position.   The Internet giants are doing everything they can to bring back the 1870's common carrier railroad regulations.   Sad.

That would be an antitrust action (v. google). And then we'd be talking barriers to entry (there really aren't any), market share, etc. It is different. But people seem to want both.