←back to thread

1525 points garyclarke27 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
lgleason ◴[] No.23222319[source]
only if they stay neutral. This goes beyond that.
replies(3): >>23222520 #>>23222781 #>>23223522 #
1. 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...