
Policing the Internet: A Bad Idea in 1996 and Today - _sbrk
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/25/policing_the_internet_a_bad_idea_in_1996_--_and_today.html
======
codekansas
A somewhat confusing point: the author of this is Chris Cox the former US
Congressman [1], not Chris Cox the Facebook CPO [2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cox_(Facebook)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cox_\(Facebook\))

------
Barrin92
The legislative history is interesting but the arguments in the article aren't
great. From invented phrases like "neo-regulators" (I think they are just
called regulators and that is their job), to "25% of them didn't have an email
account", a lot of it boils down to "Ok boomer, you don't understand the
internet".

I don't understand at all how technical details of the internet should be
guideline for the limits that the law imposes on online platforms.

If there is a social norm and already laws that prohibit say, pornography
being available to children, on every medium, then internet platforms
shouldn't get a free pass simply because they're internet platforms. (opinions
on the particular issue aside for a minute).

I'm a little tired of somehow having to accept that internet giants can do
what they want and deserve a special role in society because they're internet
companies, and every critic is brushed off with personal attacks.

~~~
loktarogar
> then internet platforms shouldn't get a free pass simply because they're
> internet platforms.

Internet platforms cannot exist if they're liable for individual things that
users put on their platforms.

~~~
Barrin92
Okay, but how is that our problem? If your company can't exist without pouring
lead into the river it doesn't exist. That's exactly what I'm asking, why are
internet platforms supposed to let Frankenstein's monster lose on the world
and we are supposed to deal with the consequences?

If a scientist can't guarantee that their scientific experiments comply with
the safety standards we demand of them they can't do them.

Not to mention of course that internet platforms do exist that handle
individual content reliably, they're just smaller and don't collect the
economic rents that Facebook does.

~~~
loktarogar
> Not to mention of course that internet platforms do exist that handle
> individual content reliably

I'm not talking about whether they can or not. The case that makes them unable
to exist is when one single item slips past their moderation net. If they're
liable, that's the end of them.

Sure I want them held to a higher standard as well, but they will not be able
to exist at all if they were liable for user content. None of them. The ones
that are moderating successfully and the ones that aren't. User content sites
will have too much liability to be able to run. That's the end of social media
- for everyone.

