
I Shouldn’t Have to Publish This in The New York Times - mooreds
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/opinion/future-free-speech-social-media-platforms.html
======
beaner
I was sort of with it until it seemed to pivot abruptly into poor reasoning
for breaking up big tech companies.

The article seems to make contradictory arguments that (1) censorship is good,
(2) big tech is the only way censorship can be enforced, (3) big tech must be
broken up to enable smaller companies.

The article also only focuses on examples of obvious right-leaning types of
inflammatory content and excuses itself and its equal weight in dividing us.

NYT also presents itself as the last beacon of hope, the only place such an
article could be published in the future. Which is the biggest joke in the
world for free speech; just read the paper daily and you will observe that it
has one of the biggest self-applied filters anywhere.

Big media doesn't like that people don't need it anymore, and it sees breaking
up competing large institutions as part of what will save it.

It is trying to use its weight and influence to squelch competition, which is
what it accuses others of doing. But goes one step further by asking for it to
be enforced politically.

Maybe the papers should be broken up.

~~~
deogeo
> Maybe the papers should be broken up.

I mean, definitely [1], but that doesn't invalidate his argument. Both tech
and media consolidation is a problem.

[1] [http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/pix0/Screen-
shot-2012-07-19-at-...](http://cgi.rumormillnews.com/pix0/Screen-
shot-2012-07-19-at-5.23.17-PM.png)

~~~
beaner
Is it? There are more forums on the internet than there have ever been. It's
not like FB and Twitter are the only 2 platforms that exist.

I'm skeptical that "breaking them up" would really do anything. People would
continue to use the thousands of other platforms that are out there, but there
would still be a desire for a sufficiently abstract social network that
another one would grow. Then there would be calls to break that one up...

To fight against large social networks is to fight against natural human
organization and interaction. Attempting to is pointless and probably even
harmful, since the velocity of good ideas would be reduced along with the bad.

~~~
pariahHN
They may not _technically_ be the only platforms (extending to include all big
tech), but practically speaking they are effectively the only platforms, which
is what really matters. Someone may technically be able to change from Comcast
to Verizon, but if it would cost them 10k then it becomes rather impractical
and the net effect is the same as if Comcast was the only option. The barrier
to switching must be considered as well as the existence of options.

However I agree that breaking them up may not be the solution - mandated
interoperability may be. At least then there would be the benefits of having
freedom of choice with plenty of options without the downsides of losing
access to your data and your social network (which I think constitute the
majority of the switching barrier). Similar mandates in healthcare and
education would also be beneficial. This would of course not immediately solve
the problem, but I would rather have to deal with getting developers to be
mindful of the needs of their users than face the impossibility of getting
users in the first place.

An entity should be allowed to be as successful as they can manage, so long as
the practical barriers to competition are not affected (ie, network effects)

~~~
beaner
Switching costs are low. People use YouTube, Telegram, Slack, Instagram,
Snapchat, and Reddit all day. Countless smaller forums are wildly popular for
specific interests.

If they fell, whatever platform is next in line would start receiving the
criticism.

But further, I think we've seen many times in tech that about the time
something gets so large that people start wanting to regulate it is about when
tides are shifting anyway. The thing to reduce the influence of these networks
won't be regulation, it will be some combination of boredom, disillusionment,
a better alternative, the next generation wanting something different from
their parents, etc. To force split before that happens just ensures the
market-provided solution is weaker and less revolutionary than it could be,
since the competition it is overcoming has artificial handicaps. That makes
progress slower overall.

------
arbitrage
I always find myself wishing that Cory Doctorow would give his creative pieces
another revision before I read them. His premises are interesting, but the end
result is hardly ever worth the slog through stilted writing and weird hand-
waving away of details or objections.

------
jnotwell
While they covered copyrighted material, the "Safe Harbor" provisions of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) [1] were essential for any user-
created content to be hosted by third parties on the web.

I wonder if speech could be treated similarly, with a distinction made between
passive hosting and promotion:

"Tech companies should not be liable for the content that users upload to
their platforms, but they should be liable when their algorithms choose to
show it." [2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act)
[2]
[https://twitter.com/pmddomingos/status/955594859154259968](https://twitter.com/pmddomingos/status/955594859154259968)

------
edmundsauto
It's weird, he seems to think this article couldn't be published to Facebook.
I wonder if he really tried to do so.

It's also interesting that he published it on the NYTimes.com, which has an
even higher barrier to entry, and thus is not an option for most people to
express their freedom of speech.

I know article titles are usually an editor's choice, but doesn't it seem like
he could have easily published that article on his blog? (Fully admit I have
have missed his larger point; I have difficulty grokking Mr. Doctorow's
writings, which is a pity because I think he's an interesting thinker.)

~~~
jakelazaroff
It's a fictional piece based on the premise that in the future, social
networks will be so regulated that he won't be able to get a piece like that
past the automated filters. There's a paragraph at the beginning that explains
it:

 _> Editors’ note: This is part of a series, “Op-Eds From the Future,” in
which science fiction authors, futurists, philosophers and scientists write
Op-Eds that they imagine we might read 10, 20 or even 100 years from now. The
challenges they predict are imaginary — for now — but their arguments
illuminate the urgent questions of today and prepare us for tomorrow. The
opinion piece below is a work of fiction._

------
stunt
I’ve stopped reading any article with clickbaity title. We seriously need a
clickbait vote up-down button in HM to get rid of this bad trend. Hopefully
other communities might follow to fight back.

------
jasonhansel
Unpopular opinion: I think that changing Section 503 could actually _decrease_
censorship in the long run, by making centralized services less profitable &
decentralized ones more advantageous.

------
crankylinuxuser
What's the usual refrain we hear? (paraphrased) "You have no right to talk on
another companies' platform." Of course, silencing, restrictions, bans,
hellbans, and more are the answer by these profiteering owners.

You have have a right of speech (with very limited curtailments) in the USA...
However given high density of people on limited technologies, if you're on the
out, you have no effective right to speech.

And since political candidates are on there, you even lose the forum to talk
with them. (AOC, Trump, other national politicians, local city councils,
county councils). When the soapbox IS twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Instagram,
Snapchat - just how much power should the corps yield to decide who talks and
who doesn't?

(I'm making an argument for a review on user density relating to a monopoly
and thus significant oversight and access, esp when relating to politicians
and their constituents.)

~~~
otterley
(I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice.)

I think most courts would conclude that freedom of speech is the right for you
to speak in a public place or to publish using your own means. It is not
necessarily the right to be heard by the particular audience you desire to
reach, nor the right to publish using someone else's equipment. The internet
is still an open place, and there are plenty of venues other than Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube where you can express your thoughts and opinions. You can
also build your own website or blog and seek attention to it by reaching out
to others for links.

~~~
dexen
_> The internet is still an open place, and there are plenty of venues_

You are absolutely right that putting all the eggs in one basket is a textbook
mistake, and one should diversify communication channels & sources of income.

 _> nor the right to publish using someone else's equipment_

Two legal cases come to mind:

the recent decision that POTUS twitter feed is a public space
([https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-
twitt...](https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitter-
account-is-a-public-forum-97159))

and the 1980 decision in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins where, based on
Californian law, private property of the shoping mall was deemed open to
political speech
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins)).

It's perfectly fine for FB, Twitter, Google & friends to declare themselves
editorial organizations rather than open platforms. However it's worth noting
Section 230 protections hinge on being a platform.

~~~
otterley
> the recent decision that POTUS twitter feed is a public space
> ([https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-
> twitt...](https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitt...))

Interestingly, the opinion did _not_ conclude that Twitter itself is a public
forum and therefore must allow all speakers to use it and viewpoints to be
presented. Instead, it concluded that the _President's Twitter account_ is a
public forum for the purpose of answering the question whether the President
can block others' accounts from responding to it.

As for _Pruneyard_, that case is about freedom of speech under the California
Constitution, and has narrowed by subsequent law, but it remains an open
question as to whether "open to the public means all content must be
permitted" under CA law in the social media context.

