Reactions to Corporate Political Censorship?

[Carjosse]

Perhaps if you reread my post #19, you would realize that I made no such case. I didn't define the term common carrier, I'm wondering how that standard applies. It doesn't change the fact that they either are or they are not. I think these sites would prefer the benefits of both with none of the negatives.

The whole premise of your idea is ridiculous and would destroy the internet as we know it. Why would any website accept the liability for what is posted on their site, they can't. The current DMCA copyright system has proven the flaws in your plan, it causes way too much collateral damage and is often abused, just imagine if that was expanded to any kind of content, not just copyright infringing. Websites like forums, YouTube, Facebook, etc. would either just shut down, or completely remove public participation as we can see from the warnings about the EU's Article 13 which does exactly that.

Then the other alternative is equally ridiculous, expecting companies to pay to host content they have no control over, every website would become a cesspool of the worst the internet has to offer and would again lead to most websites just shutting down as suddenly they have to host everything uploaded to them and their brand disintegrates and advertisers and users leave. They would be forced to shutdown. You see how much it costs to run DP every month when the donation bar appears ads would not even make a dent in that, imagine that on a far larger scale.

 

[SDET]

The thread's about corporations, not the government. The First Amendment doesn't impact private citizens or corporations, other than ensuring that the government cannot restrict the speech either private citizens or corporations.

The free market controls corporate speech, not the government. If a corporation does something that their clients do not agree with, then those clients can decide to act by continuing to pay for the corporation's services/products, or not. That's the control, not the government.

Use anti-trust law/actions to correct the problem.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Use anti-trust law/actions to correct the problem.

As a Goldwater Republican, I prefer to keep government out of regulating private business any more than necessary, and this one is not necessary.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

The whole premise of your idea is ridiculous and would destroy the internet as we know it. Why would any website accept the liability for what is posted on their site, they can't. The current DMCA copyright system has proven the flaws in your plan, it causes way too much collateral damage and is often abused, just imagine if that was expanded to any kind of content, not just copyright infringing. Websites like forums, YouTube, Facebook, etc. would either just shut down, or completely remove public participation as we can see from the warnings about the EU's Article 13 which does exactly that.

Then the other alternative is equally ridiculous, expecting companies to pay to host content they have no control over, every website would become a cesspool of the worst the internet has to offer and would again lead to most websites just shutting down as suddenly they have to host everything uploaded to them and their brand disintegrates and advertisers and users leave. They would be forced to shutdown. You see how much it costs to run DP every month when the donation bar appears ads would not even make a dent in that, imagine that on a far larger scale.

I have no idea what construct you are envisioning. I'll say it again, either a company that distributes content is a common carrier or they are not. I've been exploring the implications of either and you think I have some grand strategy to bring down the internet. You've done nothing to dispute that, just talking about how hard something would be to implement. I'll say it again, a way around it is to have neutral community standards that apply to all. It doesn't mean that no one gets offended or that every posting/publishing must be prevented, merely that there is a mechanism to address such issues and remove them if necessary.

Have you actually read the rules of DP? The following rules are relevant to this topic: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 9a, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20. In reality, if DP were not to enforce the community standards, they could be held liable. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to follow.

 

[Carjosse]

I have no idea what construct you are envisioning. I'll say it again, either a company that distributes content is a common carrier or they are not. I've been exploring the implications of either and you think I have some grand strategy to bring down the internet. You've done nothing to dispute that, just talking about how hard something would be to implement. I'll say it again, a way around it is to have neutral community standards that apply to all. It doesn't mean that no one gets offended or that every posting/publishing must be prevented, merely that there is a mechanism to address such issues and remove them if necessary.

Have you actually read the rules of DP? The following rules are relevant to this topic: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 9a, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20. In reality, if DP were not to enforce the community standards, they could be held liable. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to follow.

How do you define "neutral community standards" and how would you legally enforce that?

Also you still have not made the case for why any of this is necessary.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

How do you define "neutral community standards" and how would you legally enforce that?

Also you still have not made the case for why any of this is necessary.

I'm not really describing anything that doesn't exist today. The platforms themselves have argued both sides of the common carrier issue. They want to remove the liability by claiming common carrier status, but then they also want to be able to manage the content in what some consider a non-neutral standard. I believe that any site should disclose their standards and apply them as they state. If they don't want to have standards, I'm OK with that too.

What does that mean? I don't have a complete answer beyond rules that apply equally to all. If the content meets a standard but a platform makes an independent decision to demonstrably prioritize the other size lower, then I don't view that as neutral.