
A Regulatory Framework for the Internet - jatsign
https://stratechery.com/2019/a-regulatory-framework-for-the-internet/
======
drenvuk
There should be no regulatory framework at all. The Christchurch video should
have been able to be seen by everyone if they so chose. All of it should be
free as in speech. I find discussing the implementation of alternatives
anathema.

Youtube, Facebook, etc. are just a stopgap solution for infrastructure that
should enable completely distributed and unblockable information by default.
The problem is that we've taken too long to move on from them because they're
easy. Any time the progress of technology slows down people seek to control
how it's used. That this guy is explaining how the regulatory framework
_should_ work is a symptom of of this cycle and it needs to be ended or at the
very least we need to move on to the next phase.

Seriously, any regulatory framework for the internet is shit and any line of
thinking allowing for such shouldn't even be followed. Period.

~~~
exelius
We’re past the point of debating whether to regulate the Internet. That ship
has sailed. It’s painfully obvious that the ease with which a nation-state
actor can spread propaganda necessitates _some_ form of regulation for
security purposes.

Because the Internet doesn’t belong to one nation, there are many different
ideas as to what that regulation needs to look like. The biggest problem in
the “everything should be free!” viewpoint is the assumption that all cultures
around the world will converge on western democratic values. That‘s honestly a
pretty arrogant assumption (though shared by many in the west).

There absolutely needs to be _some_ framework — I’m just not sure the author
proposes is the right one. I normally like Ben Thompson’s frameworks, but the
categories he proposes are not MECE and very hand-wavy. It’s a good start to
thinking about the problem, but there are a lot of business models aside from
ad-supported that drive problematic behavior as well.

~~~
drenvuk
Whenever I'm reminded that people like you exist I remember why I'm working so
hard to build technological barriers that will eliminate the damage your
screwed up viewpoints will cause. You are the oppressors. Remember that.

~~~
exelius
If you don’t regulate mass communication, the person who buys the biggest
loudspeaker becomes the oppressor.

~~~
naiveai
We need regulation, but not in the authoritarian way you propose. We need to
_prevent_ any one person or organization from having too big a loudspeaker,
and that means maintaining a free-expression attitude and creating regulation
that ensures that no one can interfere with that. Your statement is highly
ironic because all it does is hand the fucking loudspeaker to the government
instead, which as you yourself said, can be any sort of government, including
authoritarian ones. You haven't thought this through, and there are people who
have done so for a lot longer than you have. Your arrogance in this matter
will be your undoing.

------
munfred
UGH. I was so excited when I read the thread title, only to be sorely
disappointed to realized they're talking about regulating the _wrong_ thing.

We need regulation to keep the web at least moderately open and interoperable.
We need regulation to enforce standards and make it possible to jump over the
wall of walled gardens.

We're in a sorry state right now in that only email and SMS are open standards
for talking to people, and under constant siege. Attempts for new
revolutionary decentralization are yet to do a better job than most protocols
from the 80s. What if we had regulations to force service providers to provide
APIs and interoperability in their services? What if messaging someone on
Facebook from Google hangouts was as easy as sending an email?

The balkanization of the web and walled gardens is to me the biggest issue
that affects the most people for the worst, and while we constantly talk about
the new technologies that could solve the issue if only there was a way to
develop them, we ignore (I think often out of unconditioned reflex) that the
issue could be fixed in a timely and reasonable manner by bringing the
government in with a reasonable framework.

People complain all the time about how Google and Facebook and Netflix and
Spotify own all my data and make it impossible to use it outside their
platform, yet I never hear people discussing the most obvious solution: just
regulate them to make the data interoperable and empower you like you wish all
the decentralized technology would enable you to do, if only they had
adoption!

~~~
naasking
> People complain all the time about how Google and Facebook and Netflix and
> Spotify own all my data and make it impossible to use it outside their
> platform, yet I never hear people discussing the most obvious solution: just
> regulate them to make the data interoperable and empower you like you wish
> all the decentralized technology would enable you to do, if only they had
> adoption!

That doesn't address the issue where your personal information is their
business, ie. the ad-supported business as discussed in the article. The
limits of what's allowable probably needs to be well-understood by all
parties.

~~~
munfred
In the case of Facebook unless it becomes a subscription it does not indeed.
In the case of Netflix, Spotify and G Suite it's baked into the subscription
already, what the regulation would do is alleviate vendor lock-in.

------
drewcon
This is a simple articulation around something I've wondered for a while.

From a regulatory perspective should we be less concerned with regulating the
content on the platform (e.g. a single post, copywrited material) and more
concerned with regulating the broadcast effect/technology now inherent in all
the non-chronological feeds across ad supported social giants (e.g. instagram
now put my post in everyone's feed, or trending).

There seems to be more than enough precedent in the US around regulating
control over broadcast, pre-internet: Limiting TV and newspaper ownership
shares, limiting advertising to children and smoking ads, equal time, decency
standards -not advocating, just calling out that these things have happened.

Some of this I think stems from content being carried on lines deemed "common
carrier" (I'm no expert), but the gist seems to be the same here. No one said
you couldn't make a movie that included a line with the word "Fuck", but you
couldn't broadcast that movie into every American home before the 8 o'clock
news.

~~~
eurleif
The precedent for regulating content on broadcast networks is based mainly on
scarcity of radio spectrum; something that does not apply to the Internet. See
for example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._F...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._FCC)

------
tenaciousDaniel
I'm not a staunch defender of social media giants, but this article paints
them in an unfair light.

It seems to suggest that FB endorses content like the Christchurch video,
merely because the guy posted it on FB live. FB removed the video as fast as
they could.

Apart from magical AI that could somehow stop the recording, I really don't
know how else FB should have acted.

~~~
asark
What they could have done was have an entirely different business model.

Guy sets up super-projector pointed at the moon, lets people submit videos to
a website and vote on which ones get projected on the moon. Pretty soon it's
playing gore porn. Guy takes it down as soon as he finds out says "oh man
sorry about that, don't know what I could have done to stop that", but then
turns the projector right back on because every so often it plays an ad and
those are paying his bills.

Some things are just a fundamentally bad idea and there's no fixing it. I
don't have a great solution for it. I'm pretty sure the entire Internet has
proven to be a bad idea, in fact, but like so much technology you can't put it
back in the box so now we're stuck with it.

------
someguy1010
The last thing the internet needs is regulation.

------
pdxww
Unheard of. This is why in the US we have the 1st amendment backed by the 2nd
amendment. The freedom of speech can't defend itself.

What needs regulation is ISPs and companies that deal with personal data.

------
ycombonator
What an oxymoron ? Regulation and Internet. If you regulate it, everyone will
leave your regulated network for another parallel open network IPFS anyone.

~~~
cr0sh
> everyone will leave your regulated network for another parallel open network
> IPFS anyone

Maybe that'd be a good thing?

What I wish could happen here in the US is wider private mesh network
adoption.

Right now, it exists at a certain level in some cities, but it is something
that is relatively unknown, and ultimately it has to connect to the wider
internet via commercial carriers, which ultimately limits it.

If it could be completely distributed, with all nodes privately owned - think
something like CB radio used to be (of course, there were problems with that
from some operators - sigh) - anyone could stick up an antenna and easily
become a node on the mesh.

...but in the US, you run into a very big problem: Hopping the "gaps".

In certain areas of the United States (primarily the southwest region, but
others exist too) making the hop from one city to the next via independent
distributed mesh means is virtually impossible. Either distance or geographic
constraints (mountains) hinder the coverage.

The best solution I could think of, that wouldn't require one or multiple
wealth benefactors (who would then be in de-facto control of that portion -
not what is wanted, I'd imagine), would be mesh nodes in all vehicles, so that
you'd have travelling nodes on the highways and elsewhere.

I know it's all a pipe dream; I'm just tired of being so restricted in what I
can or cannot do with my "pipe" unless I spend a buttload of money on a
"business class" pipe (which my provider may not even allow to my home; plus I
bet it would also have certain restrictions as well).

------
kantos2
but the questions is: Does really spreading Christchurch video have any
negative consequences?

Without answer to this question we cant censor speech and say we are not
totalitarians.

~~~
tenaciousDaniel
Yeah the article expects you to accept that without question. I'm totally fine
with FB removing it from their servers - I would do the same thing. But
government interference here would destroy the internet, plain and simple. We
can have "nuanced" discussions all day long, but there is no "nuanced" law
around what can and cannot exist on the internet.

