Choosing to remove some speech -> be legally responsible for all content under platform?
That would be the same as a business owner who kicked out a drunkard is now legally responsible for any criminal activities performed within his store (or even, using his products.)
They 'choose to remove some speech' in the same way that major record labels 'choose to allow some speech'. They screen literally everything and only permit that which is politically neutral, favourable or profitable to them. They SHOULDN'T be legally responsible for anything which happens on the platform, if they were to treat all the content agnostically like a phone or mail institution would, but when they deliberately foster only certain flavours of speech then it makes sense that they become responsible for that which remains.
If AT&T were in the habit of cutting off your phone calls every time you insulted mohammed, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable that they be investigated further for any jihadattack that was successfully planned through their platform.
When a record company publishes a record, it does so under their name and the record is effectively theirs. Therefor they would be responsible if a record they published encouraged criminal activities for example. I do not see it the same way when a website (or a business) allows posts from the public, then picks and chooses whichever ones they don't like and removes those. It is not the same in scope (record companies typically don't publish many millions of records), and it is not the same as in principle.
As far as I can tell, the only distinction you make is whether or not the publisher puts their stamp on things or not. This does not change the principle. If I make my Funny twerking video about how Drumpf is bad or vaccinations are awesome - and this is republished to millions in a way that it WOULDN'T be, if I twerked just the same about how Drumpf is awesome and vaccinations are bad - exactly how is the platform owner behaving any different to a record label?
I wasn't around when record companies came to be to be having this discussion then, but as for right now I suppose the key difference is ease of distribution. It used to be that in order to release a record it was a big financial matter, requiring distribution and manufacturing process, whereas nowadays its all digital and online and requires pressing 'send' from the user and very little from the companies. Also record companies have more direct control as to the content of the produced work since they are at least in part paying for its creation, therefor they should be responsible legally for the content, just like when you hire a hitman you are legally responsible for the crime.
We've already established that they remove speech because they don't like it. That part we agree on.
How does it follow that they now own what speech remains?
I do think phone companies should have the option to remove customers for any reason. I would also financially support those companies' competitors, because this is a behavior I disagree with. Nevertheless, they should have that right. Just like private business owners should have the right to do or not do business with whomever they wish, hire or not hire anyone they wish, bake or not bake cakes, for any and no reason what so ever.
I do think phone companies should have the option to remove customers for any reason. I would also financially support those companies' competitors, because this is a behavior I disagree with. Nevertheless, they should have that right. Just like private business owners should have the right to do or not do business with whomever they wish, hire or not hire anyone they wish, bake or not bake cakes, for any and no reason what so ever.
Your understanding of the world is out of sync with the reality of the information-saturated reality we reside within. Social media platforms are not analogous to bakeries, they're in the flour already. You can choose to never go to a bakery yet still flourish in society, but it's very difficult to never use social media and do the same. Services seen as public utilities tend to be regulated with this kind of thing in mind. If 'regulation' is a scary word, remember that section 230 is the regulation protecting facebook in this instance.
How does it follow that they now own what speech remains?
Because they created it. If you allow only one kind of discourse through your platform, which in turn is the one major accepted informational exchange in society, and if all these restrictions boil down to CHOICES made by the platform owners, then somebody needs to own these choices at some stage.
I suspect you could live life just fine without using social media, but even if that's not the case there are alternate platforms such as the one we're on right now. Forcing Reddit or Facebook to platform us and our discussion is not justified.
Fundamentally I am against the notion of public utilities for precisely the sort of trouble such as this. If they're public, they must be allocated equally and without discern. Water, electricity, maybe roads, those things rational minds can disagree on. Facebook? I don't see how that case could be made.
As for 230 being a regulation, I don't think we should need a regulation to allow common sense of if Zuckerberg didn't post violent threats himself, then the person who actually posted them is ultimately responsible and not the company. In general the fewer regulation and government running the show we have, the better. I don't want Nancy Pelosi dictating what I can and can not do with my business, and what is or is not appropriate. If I violate somebody's rights, arrest and sue me. Otherwise leave me alone and stay out of my life. Don't like how I run my business? Don't deal with it.
Once you engage in editorial oversight, I.e removing content for arbitrary reasons, you become a publisher not a platform. And publishers have legal obligations to police their content and can be punished for not doing a good enough job.
This effectively boils down to 'the law is so and so.' I am not interesting in debating what is currently in the law books, but rather how things ought to be.
No, once you are aware of it you should do what is reasonably possible to remove said illegal activities from your premise and turn them over to the police.
How does the logic follow that:
Choosing to remove some speech -> be legally responsible for all content under platform?
That would be the same as a business owner who kicked out a drunkard is now legally responsible for any criminal activities performed within his store (or even, using his products.)
Let's have a discussion.
They 'choose to remove some speech' in the same way that major record labels 'choose to allow some speech'. They screen literally everything and only permit that which is politically neutral, favourable or profitable to them. They SHOULDN'T be legally responsible for anything which happens on the platform, if they were to treat all the content agnostically like a phone or mail institution would, but when they deliberately foster only certain flavours of speech then it makes sense that they become responsible for that which remains.
If AT&T were in the habit of cutting off your phone calls every time you insulted mohammed, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable that they be investigated further for any jihadattack that was successfully planned through their platform.
When a record company publishes a record, it does so under their name and the record is effectively theirs. Therefor they would be responsible if a record they published encouraged criminal activities for example. I do not see it the same way when a website (or a business) allows posts from the public, then picks and chooses whichever ones they don't like and removes those. It is not the same in scope (record companies typically don't publish many millions of records), and it is not the same as in principle.
As far as I can tell, the only distinction you make is whether or not the publisher puts their stamp on things or not. This does not change the principle. If I make my Funny twerking video about how Drumpf is bad or vaccinations are awesome - and this is republished to millions in a way that it WOULDN'T be, if I twerked just the same about how Drumpf is awesome and vaccinations are bad - exactly how is the platform owner behaving any different to a record label?
I wasn't around when record companies came to be to be having this discussion then, but as for right now I suppose the key difference is ease of distribution. It used to be that in order to release a record it was a big financial matter, requiring distribution and manufacturing process, whereas nowadays its all digital and online and requires pressing 'send' from the user and very little from the companies. Also record companies have more direct control as to the content of the produced work since they are at least in part paying for its creation, therefor they should be responsible legally for the content, just like when you hire a hitman you are legally responsible for the crime.
We've already established that they remove speech because they don't like it. That part we agree on.
How does it follow that they now own what speech remains?
I do think phone companies should have the option to remove customers for any reason. I would also financially support those companies' competitors, because this is a behavior I disagree with. Nevertheless, they should have that right. Just like private business owners should have the right to do or not do business with whomever they wish, hire or not hire anyone they wish, bake or not bake cakes, for any and no reason what so ever.
Your understanding of the world is out of sync with the reality of the information-saturated reality we reside within. Social media platforms are not analogous to bakeries, they're in the flour already. You can choose to never go to a bakery yet still flourish in society, but it's very difficult to never use social media and do the same. Services seen as public utilities tend to be regulated with this kind of thing in mind. If 'regulation' is a scary word, remember that section 230 is the regulation protecting facebook in this instance.
Because they created it. If you allow only one kind of discourse through your platform, which in turn is the one major accepted informational exchange in society, and if all these restrictions boil down to CHOICES made by the platform owners, then somebody needs to own these choices at some stage.
I suspect you could live life just fine without using social media, but even if that's not the case there are alternate platforms such as the one we're on right now. Forcing Reddit or Facebook to platform us and our discussion is not justified.
Fundamentally I am against the notion of public utilities for precisely the sort of trouble such as this. If they're public, they must be allocated equally and without discern. Water, electricity, maybe roads, those things rational minds can disagree on. Facebook? I don't see how that case could be made.
As for 230 being a regulation, I don't think we should need a regulation to allow common sense of if Zuckerberg didn't post violent threats himself, then the person who actually posted them is ultimately responsible and not the company. In general the fewer regulation and government running the show we have, the better. I don't want Nancy Pelosi dictating what I can and can not do with my business, and what is or is not appropriate. If I violate somebody's rights, arrest and sue me. Otherwise leave me alone and stay out of my life. Don't like how I run my business? Don't deal with it.
Once you engage in editorial oversight, I.e removing content for arbitrary reasons, you become a publisher not a platform. And publishers have legal obligations to police their content and can be punished for not doing a good enough job.
This effectively boils down to 'the law is so and so.' I am not interesting in debating what is currently in the law books, but rather how things ought to be.
No, once you are aware of it you should do what is reasonably possible to remove said illegal activities from your premise and turn them over to the police.