[ExI] Section 230 and Antitrust

[Omar Rahman]

> On 17 Jan 2021, at 00:15, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote:
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:22:26 -0800
> From: Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com <mailto:avant at sollegro.com>>
> To: ExI Chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>>
> Subject: [ExI] Section 230 and Antitrust
> Message-ID:
> 	<20210116132226.Horde.YfUW-SKp2rzar_J-Rwf07gW at secure199.inmotionhosting.com <mailto:20210116132226.Horde.YfUW-SKp2rzar_J-Rwf07gW at secure199.inmotionhosting.com>>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
> 
> 
> As many of the long time list members know, I am a very vocal opponent  
> of racism and intolerance. I truly do believe that genetic and  
> cultural diversity is a very important hedge against extinction and  
> gives tremendous competitive advantages to diverse open societies. But  
> I am also a huge proponent of the U.S. Constitution and the principles  
> of individual liberty on which it was founded. That is why I have to  
> weigh in on the events of the past two weeks.
> 
> While I decry the storming of Capitol by Q-Anon and alt-right  
> extremists in an attempted coup, and I support the investigation and  
> arrest of those who were responsible, I am very much against the  
> unilateral attack on free speech by big tech.

Free speech in the US constitution is protected against government interference/control, it doesn’t guarantee you access to someone's private media distribution systems. Companies have "terms of service", and "strategic partnerships". If you break the ToS you can be kicked out. If association with you harms their brand image they can break their partnership agreements for "strategic" business reasons.

Interestingly, because electromagnetic spectrum is a public resource which broadcast TV, radio, phone services have bought there are some “public access channels" which received (I guess they still receive?) money from the rent/sale of this spectrum. Bashing this was, of course, a favorite “vote piñata” for the right.

> I was horrified to learn  
> that 3 rich guys could decide to almost instantaneously destroy a  
> promising young social media startup with over 30 employees and 10  
> million users at the touch of a button.

If you believe that a company has monopolistic power (or duopoly or trio-poly along with some others), it might be time to split up or regulate that/those companies. Unfortunately the logical argument falls on its face, if they don’t give you a megaphone is your freedom to speak actually infringed? Clearly not. (Thought experiment: Did people 200 years ago lack free speech because they lacked access to TV/internet/radio? Clearly not.)

If they can block a new entrant to the market from setting up, then they are a monopoly and free market protections apply.

> I was reminded of Obi Wan's line from Star Wars regarding the  
> destruction of Alderaan by the Death Star: "I felt a great disturbance  
> in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror  
> and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."  
> It should terrorize anybody who has ever felt the slightest stir of  
> the American Dream to grow a small business into a successful company,  
> that Amazon could pull the plug on a small business so easily.

These large internet companies control the means of production. So, if small businesses and individuals want to prosper, they should seize control of the means of production. Fortunately, computers and bandwidth are cheap. Go for it!

Unfortunately, you can be blocked by the infrastructure/bandwidth providers because they don’t have to adhere to “Net Neutrality”….even though their infrastructure is built in and crosses public land.

> So why are not the Feds investigating this? Is that not collusion by a  
> cartel to monopolize an entire sector of a market that SHOULD be free?  
> By the letter of the law of Section 230 of the Communications Decency  
> Act, Parler did nothing wrong and cannot be held liable for the  
> content generated by its users.

If we had a strong federal national ID law, and people could be readily identified because their online comments were associated with that ID, we wouldn’t need “Section 230”. If you issued a death threat, or organized a coup, some officers of the law would show up and lock you up. There would be no need for liability protection for the large companies.

> Who gave a small cadre of billionaires  
> the right to decide what constitutes acceptable speech on their own  
> platforms AND everyone else's?

Well, you’ve said it yourself. They should decide what goes on their platform, and Parler’s “platform” was also just a thin layer on top of another platform. 

> Stuart LaForge

And here I perform many and intricate genuflection towards our most munificent ( and not at ominously named) censor “SPIKE”! Hail Spike of the Mighty Clicks!

(Who can with one click, or perhaps several, decide: a) if this post goes through, b) if I can remain a member of this list, c) the second law of thermodynamics)





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20210117/35003a9b/attachment.htm>