Think these decisions get it right. Social media sites need the ability to moderate content, and it will be impossible to decide when they're moderating for what everyone thinks are good reasons (to keep the content quality high) versus moderation for "political reasons". If platforms lean too heavily politically in one direction, we'll see what we saw with Truth Social: the emergence of new platforms meant for content that was perceived to be disfavored on the "mainstream" platforms.
This is all very confusing. If the social media companies were to have a "general requirement to serve all comers", then I suppose all postings would have to be equally available at all times. Is this what the author is suggesting? If so then the situation would be similar to a library in which every volume in its collection would be cataloged and available. However, even public libraries get to choose what to display in their lobbies, what to purchase, and what to keep in storage with limited interference.
The problems as described are that the social media companies use AI algorithms for content moderation, and that the companies themselves have too much influence. When the first printing presses started churning out material, the printers faced the same scrutiny as the social media companies and still do in certain countries. However, at least in liberal democracies, printers are allowed to print what they get paid to print, and customers can buy what they want to read.
I am not at all sure where I stand on this. On one hand my JSMill side thinks good. On the other hand Alito is right social media is categorically different. My default is to argue that it is more a matter of market problem. Social media does seem to require a monopoly to work. Everyone must be on the platform for it to function. That does make it more like a public utility than a newspaper. Perhaps comments here will help me decide.
I am so depressed and irritated with these two SCOTUS rulings. While I agree that it appears that the majority of the justices don't get it, I also understand their reluctance to remove the government ability to collaborate with the media to get out important messages to the public, and conversely for the government to prevent private media companies from deciding their content and messaging.
But again, I agree that they don't get it. They don't get that the actual definition of our social media and tech companies is in fact the new public square.
The solution here is clearly to vote Republican and then expect the part to remove the Section 230 protections for these tech companies. If they want to control content like a publisher, then they should face the liability of that content like due publishers.
There is a social media environment which has absolutely no content moderation, created in the early 80’s, called Usenet. It is a cesspool of junk. That is 100% the the specific use case of a common carrier environment. Usenet still exists and anyone can connect to it if they want unlimited child pornography and conspiracy theories. “Social Media” is not common carrier for digital data (internet)
Anything which is not Usenet is a commercial setup and only needs to adhere to commercial license models for any commercial broadcasting model.
“Social Media” comes and goes. It survives by moderation. People pay for the moderation one way or another.
Think these decisions get it right. Social media sites need the ability to moderate content, and it will be impossible to decide when they're moderating for what everyone thinks are good reasons (to keep the content quality high) versus moderation for "political reasons". If platforms lean too heavily politically in one direction, we'll see what we saw with Truth Social: the emergence of new platforms meant for content that was perceived to be disfavored on the "mainstream" platforms.
This is all very confusing. If the social media companies were to have a "general requirement to serve all comers", then I suppose all postings would have to be equally available at all times. Is this what the author is suggesting? If so then the situation would be similar to a library in which every volume in its collection would be cataloged and available. However, even public libraries get to choose what to display in their lobbies, what to purchase, and what to keep in storage with limited interference.
The problems as described are that the social media companies use AI algorithms for content moderation, and that the companies themselves have too much influence. When the first printing presses started churning out material, the printers faced the same scrutiny as the social media companies and still do in certain countries. However, at least in liberal democracies, printers are allowed to print what they get paid to print, and customers can buy what they want to read.
I am not at all sure where I stand on this. On one hand my JSMill side thinks good. On the other hand Alito is right social media is categorically different. My default is to argue that it is more a matter of market problem. Social media does seem to require a monopoly to work. Everyone must be on the platform for it to function. That does make it more like a public utility than a newspaper. Perhaps comments here will help me decide.
I am so depressed and irritated with these two SCOTUS rulings. While I agree that it appears that the majority of the justices don't get it, I also understand their reluctance to remove the government ability to collaborate with the media to get out important messages to the public, and conversely for the government to prevent private media companies from deciding their content and messaging.
But again, I agree that they don't get it. They don't get that the actual definition of our social media and tech companies is in fact the new public square.
The solution here is clearly to vote Republican and then expect the part to remove the Section 230 protections for these tech companies. If they want to control content like a publisher, then they should face the liability of that content like due publishers.
There is a social media environment which has absolutely no content moderation, created in the early 80’s, called Usenet. It is a cesspool of junk. That is 100% the the specific use case of a common carrier environment. Usenet still exists and anyone can connect to it if they want unlimited child pornography and conspiracy theories. “Social Media” is not common carrier for digital data (internet)
Anything which is not Usenet is a commercial setup and only needs to adhere to commercial license models for any commercial broadcasting model.
“Social Media” comes and goes. It survives by moderation. People pay for the moderation one way or another.
I have to read the cases, but thanks for the arguments.