RIP Swiss Family Robinson

[VikingsGuy]

If Amazon banned porn on its servers and Parler had been used to distribute porn and had done the same thing, refusing to moderate or remove content, would we be having this conversation. Does that change the calculus.

Legit question to both you and @ImBillT.

(Trying to remove the politics for a second to see if I think about the issue the same way)

I do believe (both under the current law and in the way I think it should work) that Amazon could have terms and conditions that prohibit porn, and that basis a violation of these terms then terminate service under whatever the contract terms provided in the contract (notice and cure periods, transition period, the return of content, etc). It does not matter that (other than child porn) most porn would be protected 1stA speech and not subject to government prohibition. The 1stA has nothing to do with it and between private parties they may contract for various content limitations as they agree.

More broadly, here is how I view this issue for the 4 types of businesses relevant to this discussion.

1. Internet backbone (tier 1 and the like) infrastructure and ISPs are currently, and should remain, regulated as a common carrier. Service can/should only be denied for conduct that harms the service itself (DOS attacks, etc) or conduct deemed illegal by appropriate LEO and courts. This is because, like phone lines, wireless spectrum, electricity, etc., the physical realities demand a common infrastructure to make efficient and effective use of the limited resources of land easements and wireless spectrum. They should not be liable for lawfully transmitted data of their users.

2. Content "publishers", businesses that curate, manage, target, shape, create and re-broadcast content subject to agreed user terms, are not common carriers and should be run like any other free-market business - subject to consumer protection laws, public accommodation laws, libel laws, IP laws, anti-trust laws, election laws, etc. Currently, accountability in some of these areas is removed by Congress. I do not believe that is appropriate and I strongly believe the Sec230 safe harbor should be eliminated for these businesses.

3. Internet business services, like cloud services, server farms, etc, are neither backbones nor publishers - they are simply outsourcing service providers that carry out activities that the relevant content publisher could do for themselves but they choose for various reasons not to. These are not common carriers currently and should not be considered as such in the future. They should be allowed to contract freely in the market as they so choose, and be subject to the various laws other businesses are subject to. Liability for user activity should be allocated between the service provider and the publisher just like all other commercial risks in the contract. Again - they are just doing activities on behalf of the publisher that the publisher could just do for themselves - not at all common carriers.

4. True "blind" public forums. The difference between these and "publishers" is that they do not curate, manage, shape, target, create or edit content and do not set user content rules other than prohibiting unlawful (or destructive to site like DOS attacks) activity. They have now and probably should retain a Sec230 safe harbor.

I would then allow "publisher" and "public forum" businesses to self declare - they are one or the other - and then they will be bound accordingly. For example, Twitter could either allow all legal content and retain Sec230 safe harbor, or curate/edit content and then lose Sec230 safe harbor. Their choice - but then they have to live with the inherent risks/limitations of each. The free market can take it from there.

 

[Irrelevant]

You guys are down a helluva rabbit hole. But in all the "explanations" I still think you're missing some of the big picture. WE, as in all of us, benefit from a civil society. You may have your qualms but in general you, whoever you are, are living in the lap of GD luxury. From that perspective and as a believer that there are, and we need, some acknowledgement of basic truths, fully support the censorship of people and opinions that are of sufficient detriment to our civil society through the spreading of lies or general incitement against our country. If that comes via private parties or actual legislation I don't really care. America is an idea stronger and better than either party, and I will fiercely defend her from all threats, foreign or DOMESTIC.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I do believe (both under the current law and in the way I think it should work) that Amazon could have terms and conditions that prohibit porn, and that basis a violation of these terms then terminate service under whatever the contract terms provided in the contract (notice and cure periods, transition period, the return of content, etc). It does not matter that (other than child porn) most porn would be protected 1stA speech and not subject to government prohibition. The 1stA has nothing to do with it and between private parties they may contract for various content limitations as they agree.

More broadly, here is how I view this issue for the 4 types of businesses relevant to this discussion.

1. Internet backbone (tier 1 and the like) infrastructure and ISPs are currently, and should remain, regulated as a common carrier. Service can/should only be denied for conduct that harms the service itself (DOS attacks, etc) or conduct deemed illegal by appropriate LEO and courts. This is because, like phone lines, wireless spectrum, electricity, etc., the physical realities demand a common infrastructure to make efficient and effective use of the limited resources of land easements and wireless spectrum. They should not be liable for lawfully transmitted data of their users.

2. Content "publishers", businesses that curate, manage, target, shape, create and re-broadcast content subject to agreed user terms, are not common carriers and should be run like any other free-market business - subject to consumer protection laws, public accommodation laws, libel laws, IP laws, anti-trust laws, election laws, etc. Currently, accountability in some of these areas is removed by Congress. I do not believe that is appropriate and I strongly believe the Sec230 safe harbor should be eliminated for these businesses.

3. Internet business services, like cloud services, server farms, etc, are neither backbones nor publishers - they are simply outsourcing service providers that carry out activities that the relevant content publisher could do for themselves but they choose for various reasons not to. These are not common carriers currently and should not be considered as such in the future. They should be allowed to contract freely in the market as they so choose, and be subject to the various laws other businesses are subject to. Liability for user activity should be allocated between the service provider and the publisher just like all other commercial risks in the contract. Again - they are just doing activities on behalf of the publisher that the publisher could just do for themselves - not at all common carriers.

4. True "blind" public forums. The difference between these and "publishers" is that they do not curate, manage, shape, target, create or edit content and do not set user content rules other than prohibiting unlawful (or destructive to site like DOS attacks) activity. They have now and probably should retain a Sec230 safe harbor.

I would then allow "publisher" and "public forum" businesses to self declare - they are one or the other - and then they will be bound accordingly. For example, Twitter could either allow all legal content and retain Sec230 safe harbor, or curate/edit content and then lose Sec230 safe harbor. Their choice - but then they have to live with the inherent risks/limitations of each. The free market can take it from there.

I’d vote for that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

. . . in general you, whoever you are, are living in the lap of GD luxury.

I agree - life has never been better. Doesn't mean it is perfect or that we don't face big challenges, but there is no past "Happy Days" if we are honest with ourselves.

From that perspective and as a believer that there are, and we need, some acknowledgement of basic truths, fully support the censorship of people and opinions that are of sufficient detriment to our civil society through the spreading of lies or general incitement against our country.

I couldn't disagree more. This is exactly the sincere position of many in China. I am not "commie baiting". There are intelligent and thoughtful people that view free speech as a threat to peace and social order and they choose social order over individual speech. I reject that premise most strongly. I believe in the strongest form of free speech possible. It is my "cold dead hands" issue.

Who amongst us gets to set those lines? It is not that I like "fake news" and "farcical woke history", but rather, what human (or small group of humans) is sufficiently unbiased, completely fair, fully open minded, factually accurate on every topic, and is able to define and fully integrate the values and perspectives of 350 million fellow citizens? Other than @wllm1313, I can't think of a single one. Was McCarthy right? Were the school boards that banned Catcher in the Rye and Of Mice and Men right? What about the folks that decided Dr. Suess' "If I Ran a Zoo" was a threat to civil society? [Note, I am not arguing that a private publishing business can't stop printing the book for whatever their reasons - I am talking about those fellow humans deciding the government rules.]. What about Popes denying that the Earth circles the sun (something that was a scientific fact since the ancient Greeks that ceased to be a "fact" for a thousand years in the name of religious civility). If we surrender free speech in favor of civility as defined by an undetermined group of elites then we have no democracy or freedom (even if we keep our guns).

America is an idea stronger and better than either party, and I will fiercely defend her from all threats, foreign or DOMESTIC.

And we agree again!


"Two outta three ain't bad," as they say.

 

[Irrelevant]

Who amongst us gets to set those lines? It is not that I like "fake news" and "farcical woke history", but rather, what human (or small group of humans) is sufficiently unbiased, completely fair, fully open minded, factually accurate on every topic, and is able to define and fully integrate the values and perspectives of 350 million fellow citizens?

But to answer your question. "We"

I had my eyes and ears open on Jan 6th, when our democracy suffered what in my mind amounts to the worse attack since I've been alive. I saw the harm that can come, when lies are placed higher than truths. That egotistical liar did more to harm our democracy that a bunch of jihadists ever could.

 

[Irrelevant]

This experiment will end if we continue down that path that you are more important than us.

 

[VikingsGuy]

But to answer your question. "We"

I had my eyes and ears open on Jan 6th, when our democracy suffered what in my mind amounts to the worse attack since I've been alive. I saw the harm that can come, when lies are placed higher than truths. That egotistical liar did more to harm our democracy that a bunch of jihadists ever could.

As we have learned over the last 12 or so years, there is no "we" when it comes to determining what is "right", so you have to pick a panel/committee/govt agency to do it. And I point you back to the many times this has been tried and which have worked well?

As for the 6th - absolutely bad, but easily overcome - so democracy worked, free speech worked, even the majority of GOP Congressman saw through the lies, as did dozens of GOP appointed judges and hundreds of GOP state officials. Yes, the 6th was bad, but not bad enough to regulate speech. That would be the permanent harm that no jihadist could ever hope to deliver.

This raises a major gripe of mine. Every single bad event seems to result in more government regulation and oversight. We are a nation of 350 million people, bad things are going to happen once in a while, we don't need further government control to address every one of them. If I was in Congress I would vote against any bill named after a single victim or a single event just out of principle, I wouldn't even care about the subject of the bill.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This experiment will end if we continue down that path that you are more important than us.

No, it will end if we believe a few hundred "most enlightened" (right or woke) can make better decisions than the aggregate will of our fellow citizens. If a few enlightened know better than all of us then we have chosen dictatorship or oligarchy as our preferred form of governance because freedom is too messy. A billion chinese have seemed to accept this choice as do 200 million Russians. I do not. Freedom is messy, people are messy, but government tribunals regulating thought and "truth" are far worse. It saddens me that many Americans are thinking about surrendering freedom of thought and freedom of speech in trade for false government-enforced harmony. That truly would be the death of the dream of a free people by definition.

 

[Irrelevant]

As we have learned over the last 12 or so years, there is no "we" when it comes to determining what is "right", so you have to pick a panel/committee/govt agency to do it. And I point you back to the many times this has been tried and which have worked well?

We literally do it all the time. The entire government is basically set up to do that exact thing, where it's deciding if the police or a citizen is lying about a murder, or if any particular legislation is right/constitution/ethical.

As for the 6th - absolutely bad, but easily overcome - so democracy worked, free speech worked, even the majority of GOP Congressman saw through the lies, as did dozens of GOP appointed judges and hundreds of GOP state officials. Yes, the 6th was bad, but not bad enough to regulate speech. That would be the permanent harm that no jihadist could ever hope to deliver.

If it had gone worse would you still think that? What if the crowd was 10x, what if they killed our legislators and actually succeeded in overthrowing our government?

This raises a major gripe of mine. Every single bad event seems to result in more government regulation and oversight. We are a nation of 350 million people, bad things are going to happen once in a while, we don't need further government control to address every one of them. If I was in Congress I would vote against any bill named after a single victim or a single event just out of principle, I wouldn't even care about the subject of the bill.

In terms of things like people dying from drunk drivers or individual killings, sure I'm fine. 9/11 didn't warrant the patriot act. But when there becomes the real risk of a radicalized group attempting to overthrow our government I damn sure find there to be a need for correction.

 

[Irrelevant]

No, it will end if we believe a few hundred "most enlightened" (right or woke) can make better decisions than the aggregate will of our fellow citizens. If a few enlightened know better than all of us then we have chosen dictatorship or oligarchy as our preferred form of governance because freedom is too messy. A billion chinese have seemed to accept this choice as do 200 million Russians. I do not. Freedom is messy, people are messy, but government tribunals regulating thought and "truth" are far worse. It saddens me that many Americans are thinking about surrendering freedom of thought and freedom of speech in trade for false government-enforced harmony. That truly would be the death of the dream of a free people by definition.

It appears we are fearful of the same thing.

But I saw Big Brother use lies to assume power.

You see the restrictions Big Brother placed once in power.

 

[noharleyyet]

It appears we are fearful of the same thing.

But I saw Big Brother use lies to assume power.

You see the restrictions Big Brother placed once in power.

I'm a little concerned with The Big Guy...

 

[406dn]

As for the 6th - absolutely bad, but easily overcome - so democracy worked, free speech worked, even the majority of GOP Congressman saw through the lies, as did dozens of GOP appointed judges and hundreds of GOP state officials.

That is a decent coat of whitewash. A majority of House Republicans voted against accepting the electors from several states, including most of the leadership.

Most of them still won't state the big lie is a big lie,,even if they see thru it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That is a decent coat of whitewash. A majority of House Republicans voted against accepting the electors from several states, including most of the leadership.

Most of them still won't state the big lie is a big lie,,even if they see thru it.

I was thinking about the 44-6 GOP Senate votes in favor of the election when I typed this. But you are right the house was 90-121 on AZ. That gives us 134-127 of GOP congressional members. So my characterization of "majority" was correct. But still no badge of honor for them that day.

 

[Dougfirtree]

It already does, and that’s the point @POTUS on Twitter.

Biden and Obama didn’t actually tweet themselves it was an aide.

Trump did, that’s problematic.

The issue will get worse as millennials take office, needs to be sorted out now, IMHO.

Chilling thought...

 

[VikingsGuy]

Trump did, that’s problematic.

Whenever someone mentions LBJ, despite my best efforts I always immediately visualize him sitting on the crapper in the oval office during meetings with those he didn't like (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/18463/lbj-president-who-marked-his-territory).

In turn, now whenever someone says Trump, I just see him on the crapper thumb-typing ill-conceived tweets. (or at least I hope he is thumb-typing )

 

[ImBillT]

I do believe (both under the current law and in the way I think it should work) that Amazon could have terms and conditions that prohibit porn, and that basis a violation of these terms then terminate service under whatever the contract terms provided in the contract (notice and cure periods, transition period, the return of content, etc). It does not matter that (other than child porn) most porn would be protected 1stA speech and not subject to government prohibition. The 1stA has nothing to do with it and between private parties they may contract for various content limitations as they agree.

More broadly, here is how I view this issue for the 4 types of businesses relevant to this discussion.

1. Internet backbone (tier 1 and the like) infrastructure and ISPs are currently, and should remain, regulated as a common carrier. Service can/should only be denied for conduct that harms the service itself (DOS attacks, etc) or conduct deemed illegal by appropriate LEO and courts. This is because, like phone lines, wireless spectrum, electricity, etc., the physical realities demand a common infrastructure to make efficient and effective use of the limited resources of land easements and wireless spectrum. They should not be liable for lawfully transmitted data of their users.

2. Content "publishers", businesses that curate, manage, target, shape, create and re-broadcast content subject to agreed user terms, are not common carriers and should be run like any other free-market business - subject to consumer protection laws, public accommodation laws, libel laws, IP laws, anti-trust laws, election laws, etc. Currently, accountability in some of these areas is removed by Congress. I do not believe that is appropriate and I strongly believe the Sec230 safe harbor should be eliminated for these businesses.

3. Internet business services, like cloud services, server farms, etc, are neither backbones nor publishers - they are simply outsourcing service providers that carry out activities that the relevant content publisher could do for themselves but they choose for various reasons not to. These are not common carriers currently and should not be considered as such in the future. They should be allowed to contract freely in the market as they so choose, and be subject to the various laws other businesses are subject to. Liability for user activity should be allocated between the service provider and the publisher just like all other commercial risks in the contract. Again - they are just doing activities on behalf of the publisher that the publisher could just do for themselves - not at all common carriers.

4. True "blind" public forums. The difference between these and "publishers" is that they do not curate, manage, shape, target, create or edit content and do not set user content rules other than prohibiting unlawful (or destructive to site like DOS attacks) activity. They have now and probably should retain a Sec230 safe harbor.

I would then allow "publisher" and "public forum" businesses to self declare - they are one or the other - and then they will be bound accordingly. For example, Twitter could either allow all legal content and retain Sec230 safe harbor, or curate/edit content and then lose Sec230 safe harbor. Their choice - but then they have to live with the inherent risks/limitations of each. The free market can take it from there.

I totally agree with everything you said in 1&2.

For part 3, I don’t know enough about how exactly the internet works to give a definite opinion that I wouldn’t take back once I understood part of it better, but I could be convinced that there products and services that are leased and sold by a limited number of campaniles such that if they were always allowed to control end use, they could stifle freedom significantly. That may not be the case on the Amazon server issue.

On 4 I would say that I think we would be better off allowing slightly more moderation while retaining platform protection, but not nearly as much as is currently allowed. As I stated in an earlier post, I’m okay with exceptions for violence, vulgarity, gore, pornography etc. The main things should be that the allowed issues for moderation are things that we currently restrict rather broadly, AND that moderation actions should be consistently applied across all user accounts. When Trump gets censors for something along of the lines of “we can’t take back out country by being weak”, and Maxine Waters says “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” but she isn’t censored, then suddenly we have a case for saying that the “platform” is taking sides, and thus becomes a publisher.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I totally agree with everything you said in 1&2.

For part 3, I don’t know enough about how exactly the internet works to give a definite opinion that I wouldn’t take back once I understood part of it better, but I could be convinced that there products and services that are leased and sold by a limited number of campaniles such that if they were always allowed to control end use, they could stifle freedom significantly. That may not be the case on the Amazon server issue.

On 4 I would say that I think we would be better off allowing slightly more moderation while retaining platform protection, but not nearly as much as is currently allowed. As I stated in an earlier post, I’m okay with exceptions for violence, vulgarity, gore, pornography etc. The main things should be that the allowed issues for moderation are things that we currently restrict rather broadly, AND that moderation actions should be consistently applied across all user accounts. When Trump gets censors for something along of the lines of “we can’t take back out country by being weak”, and Maxine Waters says “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” but she isn’t censored, then suddenly we have a case for saying that the “platform” is taking sides, and thus becomes a publisher.

part 3 - plenty of service options - just not as convenient day 1 as Amazon. But that's how markets work. A successful incumbent overreaches/over prices and competitors rise up. It doesn't guarantee on any particular day you get the service you want on the terms you want. Too many people want to co-opt private resources for their agenda. This is not ok. It is very different than the backbone question - as there there are truly limits to backbone creation. There are no limits to developing an all GOP server farm today. It is odd that free-market conservatives so quickly want to regulate markets rather than competing within them when it suits them. But frankly, the Trumpist GOP is no longer a conservative free-market party, it has been co-opted to be a populist/nationalist party that cares about ideological purity more than free markets - so for them I guess the ends justify the means.

part 4 - way too many terms that are way too subjective -- violence to some now includes off-color humor; gore is in the eye of the beholder as is pornography. If we want to move past the current pissing matches we need to stop trying to thread the needle on everything. Keep it simple -- common carrier or not.

 

[ImBillT]

But to answer your question. "We"

I had my eyes and ears open on Jan 6th, when our democracy suffered what in my mind amounts to the worse attack since I've been alive. I saw the harm that can come, when lies are placed higher than truths. That egotistical liar did more to harm our democracy that a bunch of jihadists ever could.

Really? On January sixth over 100,000 Trump supporters went to DC to support Trump peacefully. The capital police removed barricades, AND OPENED THE DOOR. About 800 whack jobs entered the capital building. In testimony before Congress it was revealed that NOT ONE firearm was recovered inside the building during or after the fact. The only shooting victim was unarmed woman OUTSIDE the capital building, and you think it’s the worst attack in your life? I don’t support what those people did, but compared to the size of the crowd, the number of people who went in there is minuscule. If they had been there to kill people they easily could have.

100,000 people outside. The capital building is breeched, and not one elected official died, yet the security they were provided would have barely been adequate for a handful of armed people, and you think it’s the worst attack since you’ve been alive?

Take a look at the picture, and tell me if you think that the capital police fended those people off. The answer is “no”. They didn’t have to because that was not an insurrection and if Trump had attempt to incite one, he would have failed.

The only way one can sort truth from lies if all sides are allowed to speak and be heard. As soon as the government becomes the arbiter of truth, you will see what really happens when lies are held up over truths.

 

[ImBillT]

part 3 - plenty of service options - just not as convenient day 1 as Amazon. But that's how markets work. A successful incumbent overreaches/over prices and competitors rise up. It doesn't guarantee on any particular day you get the service you want on the terms you want. Too many people want to co-opt private resources for their agenda. This is not ok. It is very different than the backbone question - as there there are truly limits to backbone creation. There are no limits to developing an all GOP server farm today. It is odd that free-market conservatives so quickly want to regulate markets rather than competing within them when it suits them. But frankly, the Trumpist GOP is no longer a conservative free-market party, it has been co-opted to be a populist/nationalist party that cares about ideological purity more than free markets - so for them I guess the ends justify the means.

part 4 - way too many terms that are way too subjective -- violence to some now includes off-color humor; gore is in the eye of the beholder as is pornography. If we want to move past the current pissing matches we need to stop trying to thread the needle on everything. Keep it simple -- common carrier or not.

The GOP has not been a free market conservative party since 1988, and I’m not sure they were before Reagan was elected either. They are closer to that than the Democrat party though.

 

[MTLabrador]

Someone please post a story......

I grilled an elk burger today, so I decided to post the lengthy story of the hunt that gave me this elk. I decided to go hunting at about noon. Got to my glassing spot by 1600. I spotted a group of bulls and decided to take one of them home and eat him. Pulled the trigger at about 1800, had him packed out by about 0100. The burger was good.