I've listened to an interview with the ceo of Parler and the way you are presenting things seems very different han reality
Would it change your opinion at all if correspondence was released and it turns out the characterization was wrong and AWS has been supportive of them almost the entire time? That when aws gave the ban threat, it came out of the blue, and nothing parler could have done would allow them to stay (since ultimately it was a political decision behind the facade)
Or would that just move the goal posts to: well aws is a private company?
It is obviously a difficult topic, but this is such a weak argument. There is actually very little nuance here. It can be boiled down to "if you dont like what companies are doing, build your own".
Mike would be the guy arguing for you to building your own railroad 100+ years ago. Hey if the electricity company doesn't want to give you power, you must not have nurtured that relationship hard enough and why should private companies be forced to provide you services! You can make your own wind turbine after all!
Mike has a strong analytical mind, but his issue is it isn't able to disconnect from his politics/emotions. He may be able to overcome them when something is clearly illegal, but as soon as it steps into a gray zone where you have to think about new structures and how existing laws may not apply, he doesn't think thru the consequences as long as its speech he disagrees with.
His articles that rely on law interpretation are very valuable but unfortunately it seems like visionary he is not.
Thank you for the link. After reading through it, I admit I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me! It seems the case was in fact decided against the defendants. The writer of the article did huff and puff about the decision, but ultimately it doesn't matter as FTC prevailed.
To be fair, LeadClick did seem to go above and beyond my example (like telling affiliates to make changes, where in my example we wouldn't have any contact with the customer leavings the review)
But anyways, this makes my point. I have been going back and forth with you, stone and Masnik about this similar topic across a few articles. Even if you guys believe there is current case law and the law is clear in on way. It doesn't seem like that is a guarantee and tomorrow it can easily change, as it is already used differently in other circumstances (like with the FTC). There is always so much open to interpretation and just like the article says "Once this court makes this doctrinal cheat, LeadClick didn’t have a chance". All of a sudden things like knowledge of foul play come into play. Ability to control. Deception. etc.. Next thing you k now, the legal standard will be just like the article discussed "a defendant may be held liable for engaging in deceptive practices or acts if, with knowledge of the deception, it either directly participates in a deceptive scheme or has the authority to control the deceptive content at issue". Again, all that this all hinged on was the interpretation that knowingly ALLOWING the deceptive action to continue taking place when they could have stopped it, was direct precipitation and making them part of being the content creator.
That is my laymans understanding atleast. Our attorneys didn't cite case law for us, they just let us know that the situation I presented opened us up to litigation and substantial risk.
"Should I be held legally liable if I welcome someone into my home and they open a window to yell something profane within earshot of children, regardless of whether I subsequently kick the asshole out of my home?"
I'm not sure if things change when we are talkinga bout a business and having a profit motive. If someone comes to Mcdonalds and yells outside the window that this burger cures cancer and I continue allowing them to yell this. Then I profit from the fact that people are coming in thinking it will cure cancer. I think I will be liable. That is the impression our attorneys have left (they didn't use this exact example).
According to our attorneys, you would be incorrect. In my example, we would in fact be responsible for not removing it. As it would be implying our endorsement since we have the ability to remove it. They said they have dealt with the FDA/FTC in these exact type of scenarios.
I don't know if things get muddied by the fact that we profit from this misinformation and I don't know if there needs to be proof of us knowing the misinformation was there and we decided not to do something about it.
I also don't know if their standard may be different than what is ultimately being discussed here. They aren't looking for some theoretical liability that we can be vindicated from by taking a case to the supreme court. So maybe on further dissection it may turn out you are right. But we would have to go through the FDA/FTC investigations, lawsuits,appeals, etc just to get to the bottom of it. Most would pay a penalty and fix whatever the infraction is.
Sounds like possibly exactly the type of thing to point out as evidence of "taking section 230 too broadly". If I knowingly spread misinformation, I should be responsible for the misinformation. That seems like a different thing than just having an open forum and not being responsible for things people post openly and without moderation.
To be clear, the government has taken a stance like this in other places which are kind of parallel to this. For example, assume my company makes gizmo's that do x,y,z but is not approved by the FDA to cure an disease. if someone writes a review about my companies gizmo on a site I do not control (e.g. Amazon) and says it "cures" something, I am not responsible. If I take that review and all I do is post it on my website as "look what someone said about our product!", the FDA will knock on my door and ask me why I am selling a drug that has not been registered. And if it is not, my case will be taken by the FTC for false advertising. According to our company attorneys, you don't even have to do the posting. If there is a review system on our website and someone posted a review that says it cures x,y,z we could be responsible. If we have absolutely any moderation control (like being able to delete reviews from our website), we would be taking responsibility for claims made by the reviews by keeping it on there.
What if the platform claims to be unbiased but its actions show that it is biased in its moderation. ASSUMING that is true, isn't that lying to its customers. If a company promises its customers X but gives them Y, you wouldn't tell customers to simply go somewhere else. They can be sued for this deception.
Whether its strictly on section 230 based complaints is a little bit of a moot point.
Something doesn't smell right. I understand the rebuttals of some of the attacks on section 230, but I still think its being interpreted far too widely. Free speech still has consequences. It still seems like many of the complaints against these companies can be interpreted in a way to have them held liable in some way.
When I say there is a fire, I may be allowed to say it, but I am responsible for the outcome of my false statement. What happens when I tweet there is a fire and Twitter algorithm pushes up my tweet. Its protected by section 230 in its current interpretation I think , but it should not be. If there are consequences to the original fire tweet, there should be consequences to the free speech act of amplifying it as it's directly responsible for extra damage. I think this is part of what Clarence Thomas meant.
What about other false statement. I understand it is twitters right to be biased and moderate as it likes.. however when twitter says it is unbiased and is apolitical then it moderates in biased ways (amulets assume thats true), has it not lied to its customers? You are giving them your data and using the platform under certain pretenses. Its dishonest to just say "well no one is forcing you to use it". This may not be a direct attack on section 230 but it speaks to the exact complaint against these companies. If McDonald's advertise meat in their burgers and then when it comes out there is no meat, you wouldn't say their advertisement is free speech nd if you dont like the deception go somewhere else. No. They would be sued for fraud.
I replied to Nasch further up the chain addressing some of your other points.
Ultimately I think we disagree drastically on the possibility of opening up an alternative to Social Media's. I addressed it in my other reply but to summarize. There is a HUGE minimum population needed for it to catch on, which would take power and funds that are likely on the level of infrastructure. Making an app getting people to play a viral farming game isn't the same thing as making a platform like twitter that holds a big portion of conversations between journalists, politicians (president of USA uses it to announce policy!), etc.. Gab is already made, but even if it was "better", it can't compete simply because of the monopoly Twitter already has on the space.
It is near impossible for a legitimate competitor to enter. When something like Tik Tok entered, it didn't compete with the others. It carved out it's own space. Instagram didn't steal from Facebook, they carved out it's own space. Both the govt and Facebook agreed with my view on this as that is why FB buyout of Instagram was allowed. There are no real competitors to twitter, facebook, instagram, youtube, etc..
Also, when all the companies are centered in the same geographic areas with the same type of employees, you end up with moderation that comes from the same place and the same people banned. They are effectively acting the same. It is not uncommon for moderation to happen to the same things or people from all the companies at basically the same time.
It is only a "natural" monopoly through the lens that we view it now. Again, before they didn't think that. It has just been so long since society decided this, that it feels natural. It doesn't make sense for half the USA to use lightning ports and the other half USB (example picked out of thin air and stats not accurate), but they do it all the same. It is a variety of factors and not just the equivalent of it not making sense to run power lines. Which I am sure you agree as well as you didn't say that specifically.
The power a company has over your life and your liberty is a big part as well.
There are certain ventures that take SO much capital, that it is the equivalent of running power lines. As you mentioned, it may have more to do with anticompetitive behaviour than free speech laws exactly. For example, youtube is a huge financial loss for google, year after year. They use their profits in other markets to continue their video domination. This is similar to Amazon's selling side is a loss for them (not 100% sure if that is still true) but they use their computing side to cover costs. That makes it nearly impossible for a competitor to compete and they are near monopolies. When all the top social media and tech companies are near monopolies in all their respective categories and they all have the same type of moderation targeting the same people, it is a big issue.
Social media specifically brings another challenge. Other than minute details, it doesn't matter if you have comcast or at&t providing your internet. You ultimately get to the same "internet" more or less. If 99% of people use one company for a specific type of service (e.g. twitter), there is little to no chance that another company. There is a minimum capacity and population for there to be any chance of competing and more importantly, it is important to be on there for alot of real world things. Which would require revolutionary change or insane funding (same that can be said of utilities). This isn't a once side of the aisle issue. Almost no progressive candidate would of standed a chance if they were unilaterally banned from places like twitter/youtube/etc. In fact progressives probably suffer more than conservatives in this way as power usually ends up benefiting the status quo.
There are plenty of utilities that are not government run. I don't know what the percentage is, but ALOT of utility companies are private companies.
The reasoning would be from what I said previously:
What about if it reaches a certain thresholds of importance in everybody's every day lives.
Again, before utilities had the current regulations that they have (that I assume your atleast mostly agree with), the argument was go build your own X. But it was decided against them anyways, riight? Why?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Appreciative user.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've listened to an interview with the ceo of Parler and the way you are presenting things seems very different han reality
Would it change your opinion at all if correspondence was released and it turns out the characterization was wrong and AWS has been supportive of them almost the entire time? That when aws gave the ban threat, it came out of the blue, and nothing parler could have done would allow them to stay (since ultimately it was a political decision behind the facade)
Or would that just move the goal posts to: well aws is a private company?
(untitled comment)
It is obviously a difficult topic, but this is such a weak argument. There is actually very little nuance here. It can be boiled down to "if you dont like what companies are doing, build your own".
Mike would be the guy arguing for you to building your own railroad 100+ years ago. Hey if the electricity company doesn't want to give you power, you must not have nurtured that relationship hard enough and why should private companies be forced to provide you services! You can make your own wind turbine after all!
Mike has a strong analytical mind, but his issue is it isn't able to disconnect from his politics/emotions. He may be able to overcome them when something is clearly illegal, but as soon as it steps into a gray zone where you have to think about new structures and how existing laws may not apply, he doesn't think thru the consequences as long as its speech he disagrees with.
His articles that rely on law interpretation are very valuable but unfortunately it seems like visionary he is not.
Re: Re: Maliciously prosecuted for opposing a violent mob.
I don't think you know what private property means.
Re: So, web-sites can kick anyone off, but DIFFERENT when physic
I agree completely with your interpretation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you read the entire post you would also see me explain why they are NOT competitors simply because they are all tech companies.
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not saying that corporations haven't gotten away with ALOT of things.... but if I remember correctly, many of your examples DID get sued.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There was no appeal to authority and you can take whatever a random internet stranger says with a grain of salt.
I was just giving the knowledge and experience I have (what our companies attorneys told us) in good faith.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for the link. After reading through it, I admit I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me! It seems the case was in fact decided against the defendants. The writer of the article did huff and puff about the decision, but ultimately it doesn't matter as FTC prevailed.
To be fair, LeadClick did seem to go above and beyond my example (like telling affiliates to make changes, where in my example we wouldn't have any contact with the customer leavings the review)
But anyways, this makes my point. I have been going back and forth with you, stone and Masnik about this similar topic across a few articles. Even if you guys believe there is current case law and the law is clear in on way. It doesn't seem like that is a guarantee and tomorrow it can easily change, as it is already used differently in other circumstances (like with the FTC). There is always so much open to interpretation and just like the article says "Once this court makes this doctrinal cheat, LeadClick didn’t have a chance". All of a sudden things like knowledge of foul play come into play. Ability to control. Deception. etc.. Next thing you k now, the legal standard will be just like the article discussed "a defendant may be held liable for engaging in deceptive practices or acts if, with knowledge of the deception, it either directly participates in a deceptive scheme or has the authority to control the deceptive content at issue". Again, all that this all hinged on was the interpretation that knowingly ALLOWING the deceptive action to continue taking place when they could have stopped it, was direct precipitation and making them part of being the content creator.
That is my laymans understanding atleast. Our attorneys didn't cite case law for us, they just let us know that the situation I presented opened us up to litigation and substantial risk.
Re:
"Should I be held legally liable if I welcome someone into my home and they open a window to yell something profane within earshot of children, regardless of whether I subsequently kick the asshole out of my home?"
I'm not sure if things change when we are talkinga bout a business and having a profit motive. If someone comes to Mcdonalds and yells outside the window that this burger cures cancer and I continue allowing them to yell this. Then I profit from the fact that people are coming in thinking it will cure cancer. I think I will be liable. That is the impression our attorneys have left (they didn't use this exact example).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to our attorneys, you would be incorrect. In my example, we would in fact be responsible for not removing it. As it would be implying our endorsement since we have the ability to remove it. They said they have dealt with the FDA/FTC in these exact type of scenarios.
I don't know if things get muddied by the fact that we profit from this misinformation and I don't know if there needs to be proof of us knowing the misinformation was there and we decided not to do something about it.
I also don't know if their standard may be different than what is ultimately being discussed here. They aren't looking for some theoretical liability that we can be vindicated from by taking a case to the supreme court. So maybe on further dissection it may turn out you are right. But we would have to go through the FDA/FTC investigations, lawsuits,appeals, etc just to get to the bottom of it. Most would pay a penalty and fix whatever the infraction is.
Re: Re:
Sounds like possibly exactly the type of thing to point out as evidence of "taking section 230 too broadly". If I knowingly spread misinformation, I should be responsible for the misinformation. That seems like a different thing than just having an open forum and not being responsible for things people post openly and without moderation.
To be clear, the government has taken a stance like this in other places which are kind of parallel to this. For example, assume my company makes gizmo's that do x,y,z but is not approved by the FDA to cure an disease. if someone writes a review about my companies gizmo on a site I do not control (e.g. Amazon) and says it "cures" something, I am not responsible. If I take that review and all I do is post it on my website as "look what someone said about our product!", the FDA will knock on my door and ask me why I am selling a drug that has not been registered. And if it is not, my case will be taken by the FTC for false advertising. According to our company attorneys, you don't even have to do the posting. If there is a review system on our website and someone posted a review that says it cures x,y,z we could be responsible. If we have absolutely any moderation control (like being able to delete reviews from our website), we would be taking responsibility for claims made by the reviews by keeping it on there.
Re:
What if the platform claims to be unbiased but its actions show that it is biased in its moderation. ASSUMING that is true, isn't that lying to its customers. If a company promises its customers X but gives them Y, you wouldn't tell customers to simply go somewhere else. They can be sued for this deception.
Whether its strictly on section 230 based complaints is a little bit of a moot point.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Something doesn't smell right. I understand the rebuttals of some of the attacks on section 230, but I still think its being interpreted far too widely. Free speech still has consequences. It still seems like many of the complaints against these companies can be interpreted in a way to have them held liable in some way.
When I say there is a fire, I may be allowed to say it, but I am responsible for the outcome of my false statement. What happens when I tweet there is a fire and Twitter algorithm pushes up my tweet. Its protected by section 230 in its current interpretation I think , but it should not be. If there are consequences to the original fire tweet, there should be consequences to the free speech act of amplifying it as it's directly responsible for extra damage. I think this is part of what Clarence Thomas meant.
What about other false statement. I understand it is twitters right to be biased and moderate as it likes.. however when twitter says it is unbiased and is apolitical then it moderates in biased ways (amulets assume thats true), has it not lied to its customers? You are giving them your data and using the platform under certain pretenses. Its dishonest to just say "well no one is forcing you to use it". This may not be a direct attack on section 230 but it speaks to the exact complaint against these companies. If McDonald's advertise meat in their burgers and then when it comes out there is no meat, you wouldn't say their advertisement is free speech nd if you dont like the deception go somewhere else. No. They would be sued for fraud.
Re: Re: Re:
I replied to Nasch further up the chain addressing some of your other points.
Ultimately I think we disagree drastically on the possibility of opening up an alternative to Social Media's. I addressed it in my other reply but to summarize. There is a HUGE minimum population needed for it to catch on, which would take power and funds that are likely on the level of infrastructure. Making an app getting people to play a viral farming game isn't the same thing as making a platform like twitter that holds a big portion of conversations between journalists, politicians (president of USA uses it to announce policy!), etc.. Gab is already made, but even if it was "better", it can't compete simply because of the monopoly Twitter already has on the space.
It is near impossible for a legitimate competitor to enter. When something like Tik Tok entered, it didn't compete with the others. It carved out it's own space. Instagram didn't steal from Facebook, they carved out it's own space. Both the govt and Facebook agreed with my view on this as that is why FB buyout of Instagram was allowed. There are no real competitors to twitter, facebook, instagram, youtube, etc..
Also, when all the companies are centered in the same geographic areas with the same type of employees, you end up with moderation that comes from the same place and the same people banned. They are effectively acting the same. It is not uncommon for moderation to happen to the same things or people from all the companies at basically the same time.
Re:
I believe what I said is not a gimmick and it is certainly not in bad faith. You can agree with my question and disagree with everything else.
I was leading you down a thought process to get you to answer your own concerns. In good faith and not to trick you.
Re: Re: Re:
It is only a "natural" monopoly through the lens that we view it now. Again, before they didn't think that. It has just been so long since society decided this, that it feels natural. It doesn't make sense for half the USA to use lightning ports and the other half USB (example picked out of thin air and stats not accurate), but they do it all the same. It is a variety of factors and not just the equivalent of it not making sense to run power lines. Which I am sure you agree as well as you didn't say that specifically.
The power a company has over your life and your liberty is a big part as well.
There are certain ventures that take SO much capital, that it is the equivalent of running power lines. As you mentioned, it may have more to do with anticompetitive behaviour than free speech laws exactly. For example, youtube is a huge financial loss for google, year after year. They use their profits in other markets to continue their video domination. This is similar to Amazon's selling side is a loss for them (not 100% sure if that is still true) but they use their computing side to cover costs. That makes it nearly impossible for a competitor to compete and they are near monopolies. When all the top social media and tech companies are near monopolies in all their respective categories and they all have the same type of moderation targeting the same people, it is a big issue.
Social media specifically brings another challenge. Other than minute details, it doesn't matter if you have comcast or at&t providing your internet. You ultimately get to the same "internet" more or less. If 99% of people use one company for a specific type of service (e.g. twitter), there is little to no chance that another company. There is a minimum capacity and population for there to be any chance of competing and more importantly, it is important to be on there for alot of real world things. Which would require revolutionary change or insane funding (same that can be said of utilities). This isn't a once side of the aisle issue. Almost no progressive candidate would of standed a chance if they were unilaterally banned from places like twitter/youtube/etc. In fact progressives probably suffer more than conservatives in this way as power usually ends up benefiting the status quo.
Re:
There are plenty of utilities that are not government run. I don't know what the percentage is, but ALOT of utility companies are private companies.
The reasoning would be from what I said previously:
What about if it reaches a certain thresholds of importance in everybody's every day lives.
Again, before utilities had the current regulations that they have (that I assume your atleast mostly agree with), the argument was go build your own X. But it was decided against them anyways, riight? Why?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Appreciative user.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt