Are Social Media Platforms a Public Utility and Domain ?

[Pelagic]

I listened to a comment by Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow, Hoover Institution about the rise of censorship over the Internet.

He pointed out that the irony in this is that this was adjudicated in the 1900's when Railroad companies, Phone and Oil companies who were private companies, actually used the public domain and were seen as necessary services.

Therefore, they were designated as Public Utilities and were required to follow oversight standards of performance and policy.

However, today these internet private companies have now become the moderators unto themselves for at times, obvious political and personal reasons.

Should internet platforms be allowed to shut down any contrary opinion without specific guidelines agreed to by independent oversight?

[boatman61]

No....

[grantmc]

Yes, in the same way that newspapers have always decided which letters to the Editor to publish.
Private businesses can do what they want within the bounds of the law.
Sure it smells bad, but as readers we just have to hold our nose.
That's ok so long as our eyes are still open and so we understand the bias.

[StuM]

To answer the initial question in the Subject heading - No.
To answer the final question in the last line of Post #1 - Yes.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

He pointed out that the irony in this is that this was adjudicated in the 1900's when Railroad companies, Phone and Oil companies who were private companies, actually used the public domain and were seen as necessary services.

Therefore, they were designated as Public Utilities and were required to follow oversight standards of performance and policy.

What body or bodies provided these oversight standards of performance and policy in the 1900's over the Orient Express, the transatlantic telegraph cable, Royal Dutch Shell's international operations?


"The Internet" is global infrastrucutre, different parts of which are owned by a vast range of national and multi-national corporations. What body is going to determine and enforce "oversight standards" over Digicel's Caribbean and Pacific operations for example?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I listened to a comment by Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow, Hoover Institution about the rise of censorship over the Internet.

He pointed out that the irony in this is that this was adjudicated in the 1900's when Railroad companies, Phone and Oil companies who were private companies, actually used the public domain and were seen as necessary services.

Therefore, they were designated as Public Utilities and were required to follow oversight standards of performance and policy.

However, today these internet private companies have now become the moderators unto themselves for at times, obvious political and personal reasons.

Should internet platforms be allowed to shut down any contrary opinion without specific guidelines agreed to by independent oversight?

The development, rollout and impact of the Internet has been so fast and so transformative that governments have been unable to keep up. (I was in there; the Internet put a second storey on our house and got us a boat in a yacht club ). This explosive growth has also given many of the innovators and first-movers a monopoly or dominance of some services.

There has been little regulation or even understanding from most governments and authorities about how the various components should be managed or regulated. (Though the party election committees themselves have not been afraid to be on the bleeding edge - Obama made effective use of the Internet, and then of course "Russians" and emails, Cambridge Analytica, etc ) So companies have usually been on their own to deal with social and political content issues as they crop up.

I don't often agree with Mark Zuckerberg but in one of the times he was dragged before Congress, he was correct to point out that Facebook can hardly regulate content when government has not provided regulations to follow.

The right-wing narrative that the tech companies are all left-leaning progressives stifling conservative voices is off the mark. Many of the Silicon Valley giants have happily embraced a free-market ethos, and some CEOs are unapologetic libertarians.

Basically, the companies are not out promoting some agenda (other than profits and growth, like any other company)... they have been mainly reactive, only taking action when there's complaints or a backlash, and they've done about the minimum to keep the public and government off their backs.

It's a simple fact that in the last few years, the most inflammatory and objectionable online political content has come from the right side of the spectrum, in the US and elsewhere. (If Wednesday's debacle in DC wasn't the crowning proof of that, I'll eat my tie-dyed shirt). Companies respond to complaints...

tl;dr: it's not the job of the de facto common carriers and public utilities of the Internet to set standards for acceptable content or moderation. That task belongs to society (government), so if one is unhappy with how it's currently being done, that's where the blame lies.

[Mike OReilly]

All these things are easy in theory, but when the rubber hits the road and we get into actual messy reality, it becomes a lot more difficult.

Should the Internet be treated as a public good, and therefore be taken over by government? Maybe... It definitely is a public good. But since it is an international network, who's government do you trust? Should all governments take over their branches? We already have a model for that: China (and the other overtly authoritarian regimes). I just don't see a good outcome for this approach.

Indeed, not many public utilities still exist in North America. All the ones you cite from the 1900 have reverted to private ownership. And indeed many other utilities that were once public are now private; from water systems to prisons to electricity grids to highways. I see no appetite, and a diminishing ability, for government to resume ownership of many of these vital public goods (even though I would be in favour of many going back that way).

But as an alternative, instead of public ownership we could institute tough and clear regulations that support the public good aspect of these vital services. Do away with any pretense of private corporations governing themselves. Put in clear laws and firm regulations, along with real enforcement of public standards. We already do this in lots of areas, so this seems to be a more realistic approach.

I'm not in favour of anyone being silenced. Short of inciting direct violence or causing clear harm (yelling fire in a movie hall, etc.) I never think it's a good idea. Not on Twitter, and not even here on CF . But outside of public ownership or clear regulations, private companies are free to do what they want. They have no obligation to protect speech.

With regard to the current social-media censorship that is in the news, my view is they are doing it for business reasons, not out of any sense of what is morally good or right. These companies (which I hold no love for) are often accused of having a left bias. Maybe... most highly educated people tend to be left on the political spectrum.

But I don't think that's their overt motivation. I think they are simply acting to maximize profits. They believe that certain voices are bad for their business, and since they are beholden to their shareholders, and not the public, they do what is best for their business.

[wingssail]

There have been a lot of complaints mostly from the right side of the political spectrum that Internet companies have deprived them of their right to free speech.

They believe they have been censored.

But I believe that the Internet companies (just like newspapers) also have the right of free speech, including the right not to say something if they don't want to.

Why should an Internet company be forced to publish any opinion they disagree with?

Unless facebook, twitter, et al, are considered a public space, like the town square, owned by the public, I think they retain the right to their free speech, including the right not to speak, including not to publish something they don't like.

I don't see how we can have it both ways: They are not a public utility but they have to act as if they are and give everyone a voice?

[Macblaze]

I think a quick definition of terms is in order. The "internet" is just a roadway. The argument to regulate it is valid (although I disagree) but that only takes care of the interconnected pathways (servers, routers, infrastructure, ISPs etc).

The world wide web, email, ftp, ssh etc. are not the internet—they are users of the pathway, vehicles on the road as it were. An entirely different set of regulations and methods of enforcement would be necessary. And Facebook, Twitter and its ilk are more akin to a bus service. Defining their responsibility for the actions of their passengers would take yet another level of regulation.

My conclusion. To make it work would break the internet as it currently exists, transforming it from a highway into a LA freeway and opens the whole Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? can of worms.

[goboatingnow]

Firstly who should determine so called “ free speech “ on a medium that is world wide. Is it free speech as ruled by country A,B or C

Since that question isn’t easily answered it’s better to leave it into the hands of the operating companies

Just like moderation here

Personally social media needs far far more moderation and Twitter and Facebook “ conversion “ is very late in the day

[wholybee]

A distinction needs to be made between "The Internet" and companies that operate on the Internet. There is a huge difference between a provider (Like Cox or AT&T in the USA) blocking a subscribers access to parts/sites of the Internet, and a company like Twitter or Facebook controlling what is on their own site.

IMHO, the former needs some regulation, to ensure that subscribers can access whatever they want/need. This was meant to be addressed in the US by net neutrality laws but politics got in the way.

The later is more akin to a newspaper choosing what stories and letters to the editor to print. The government needs to stay out of that decision.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by wingssail

There have been a lot of complaints mostly from the right side of the political spectrum that Internet companies have deprived them of their right to free speech.

They believe they have been censored.

But I believe that the Internet companies (just like newspapers) also have the right of free speech, including the right not to say something if they don't want to.

Why should an Internet company be forced to publish any opinion they disagree with?

Unless facebook, twitter, et al, are considered a public space, like the town square, owned by the public, I think they retain the right to their free speech, including the right not to speak, including not to publish something they don't like.

I don't see how we can have it both ways: They are not a public utility but they have to act as if they are and give everyone a voice?

Well Facebook etc have consistently used the argument that they are Not Publishers but merely platforms for their members to post their views/opinions/stories etc..
So the 'Their Free Speech' argument does not hold water when they exercise censorship against posters who they feel are anti the agenda they are promoting.
For instance someone colored saying "the UK will be a better place when all the old white men are dead" can stay a member yet someone white who has dogged establishment figures for covering up and in some cases aiding and abetting child abuse is de-platformed..
Its bad enough the Left Wing de-platforming eminent speakers in Oxford and Cambridge Universities but this has gone global

[goboatingnow]

The EU does not accept the idea that these content providers arnt publishers. To be they are a digital “ Newspaper “. Hence in my opinion I actually think they shouldn’t have protection from libel. I see no difference between the two , except that Facebook has more “ contributors “ then the Washington post

[Mike OReilly]

Internet companies, and platforms like Facebook and Twitter (and I expect, CF) are considered common carriers. They are protected from responsibility for the content they carry, much like the phone companies aren't responsible for the conversations people have on their wires (or wirelesses).

Newspapers, TV stations and other similar media outlets, are considered publishers, and are responsible for the content they put out. This makes them quite different than owners of the Internet infrastructure or operators of major platforms.

Whether you think this is the correct balance depends. The argument is this allows for greater innovation on the Internet. It also accepts a reality that it is virtually impossible to police all the content on these systems.

Scarily, it's becoming more possible to police everything. Technology and computing power already makes it possible to monitor everything, all the time.

[Time2Go]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I listened to a comment by Victor Davis Hanson, senior fellow, Hoover Institution about the rise of censorship over the Internet.

He pointed out that the irony in this is that this was adjudicated in the 1900's when Railroad companies, Phone and Oil companies who were private companies, actually used the public domain and were seen as necessary services.

Therefore, they were designated as Public Utilities and were required to follow oversight standards of performance and policy.

However, today these internet private companies have now become the moderators unto themselves for at times, obvious political and personal reasons.

Should internet platforms be allowed to shut down any contrary opinion without specific guidelines agreed to by independent oversight?

Absolutely,
I use the internet loads
but don’t have a Twitter, Facebook or Instagram account
Social media platforms are not the Internet
I prefer to talk to my friends over the phone
The way I see it, is that large segments of the population
BELEIVE what they see on these platforms
and that’s a real problem

[Lake-Effect]

You all seem to have zeroed in on the key distinction: who's curating and publishing content (so are accountable), and who's simply carrying or facilitating the publishing done by others.

Something like Facebook really blurs the lines. At heart they are a sort of managed community and a simple self-publishing tool. But the extent to which they interact with "publishers" and viewers - particularly when it comes to choosing what content to push to members, really blurs the line

Originally Posted by boatman61

Well Facebook etc have consistently used the argument that they are Not Publishers but merely platforms for their members to post their views/opinions/stories etc..
So the 'Their Free Speech' argument does not hold water when they exercise censorship against posters who they feel are anti the agenda they are promoting.

...What "agenda" does some company like FB have, besides growth and profit?