←back to thread

1525 points garyclarke27 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.523s | 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 #
jl2718 ◴[] No.23221741[source]
The only thing that needs to be constitutionally challenged is whether discretionary content filtering constitutes agency in publication under section 230 of the CDA.
replies(5): >>23222046 #>>23222280 #>>23222694 #>>23227172 #>>23228878 #
1. tzs ◴[] No.23222694[source]
How is that a constitutional question?

The whole point of 230 was to answer that: "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".

Some courts had said that filtering makes the provider a publisher and liable for the content. Congress passed 230 to reverse that.