←back to thread

1525 points garyclarke27 | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.86s | source
Show context
heinrichhartman ◴[] No.23221288[source]
This is the result of out-sourcing juristic work to private companies:

If we treat Android, Window, Twitter, Facebook, as public spaces/goods, then private companies should not have a say in what is allowed/not-allowed on their platforms. This is work for the courts and police to decide and enforce.

If we treat those platforms as private. Then we are playing in s/o's backyard. You are totally at their mercy. They have every right to kick you out if they don't like your face. It's their property. You are a guest.

I think we need constituted digital public spaces and platforms with:

- democratic footing (users are in charge)

- public ownership

- division of power (politicians =!= judges =!= police)

- effective policing

In such a system it would be for independent courts to decide which Apps can be distributed and which not. Those courts would be bound to a constitution/body of law, which applies to all parties a like.

Yes, this will be expensive. Yes, you will have to give up some privacy. But you will be a citizen in a society, and not a stranger playing in a backyard.

Maybe the current platforms can be coerced into a system which approximates the above. But I have my doubts. I hope in 200years people will have figured this out, and will look back to this age as the digital dark ages.

replies(17): >>23221309 #>>23221497 #>>23221572 #>>23221741 #>>23221897 #>>23222642 #>>23222646 #>>23222671 #>>23223166 #>>23223727 #>>23224123 #>>23224539 #>>23228931 #>>23229210 #>>23230754 #>>23231344 #>>23236648 #
john_minsk ◴[] No.23221309[source]
If they want to be private someone will take them to court for advertising drugs or something like that. They should have stayed neutral.
replies(4): >>23221378 #>>23221448 #>>23221449 #>>23221649 #
xphilter ◴[] No.23221649[source]
That’s impossible. Congress exempted the entire internet from court on something like this. Look at the communications decency act.
replies(1): >>23222319 #
1. lgleason ◴[] No.23222319[source]
only if they stay neutral. This goes beyond that.
replies(3): >>23222520 #>>23222781 #>>23223522 #
2. mmebane ◴[] No.23222520[source]
This podcast goes into a lot of detail on what the CDA says: https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2019/08/de...
3. tzs ◴[] No.23222781[source]
That's a common myth, and is completely wrong. In fact, it is almost 180 degrees wrong.

Before section 230, there had been a couple of court cases. One held that a particular provider was not liable for anything posted on it, because it did not do any filtering or blocking at all. Another held that a different provider was liable for what users posted, because it did do some filtering and blocking.

Congress felt these outcomes were wrong, and section 230 was specifically meant to make providers not liable for user provided content, regardless of whether or not they did any filtering or blocking.

replies(1): >>23234782 #
4. jimmySixDOF ◴[] No.23223522[source]
The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

-Section 230

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Interne...

5. SkyBelow ◴[] No.23234782[source]
And yet sites that aggregate illegal content are taken down by the government all the time, despite hosting none of it themselves. If you filter the wrong way, the government will hold you liable.