Wu only considers the nature of common carrier from the perspective of those wishing to broadcast messages. Yes, like rail or telephones, people ought have access to a utility that cannot discriminate against them.
But far more messages are read than written. Vastly more. And the people on the receiving end have, in my view, some rights to have their expressivity desires matched & met. Just because someone wants to send messages at my, has access to a carrier of messages to me, doesn't mean I want those messages.
I want companies able to curate, sort, filter, prioritize the things coming at me (I also want to diy that too). These feel like speech rights I also have, the freedom to walk away, to not listen, that Wu is proposing should be stripped to satisfy the broadcaster's desires.
"Yes, you're free to speak your mind, but not on my time" - Billy Joel
You should have the right to speak freely to all who wish to hear. They should have the right to hear if they want - and not to hear if they don't. That is free speech.
I’m confused. ISTM Wu arguing that companies’ right to moderate shouldn’t be constrained by a reading the 1st Amendment too broadly. Am I getting Wu wrong or do you think the 1st should sharply prescribe moderation?
I don't know what internet you are on. That's the dead ass opposite of what Tim Wu is saying. He's saying very clearly that companies have too much power & saying very clearly he thinks algorithmic & other limitations trample in free speech rights.
> By presuming that free speech protections apply to a tech company’s "curation" of content, even when that curation involves no human judgment, the Supreme Court weakens the ability of the government to regulate so-called common carriers like railroads and airlines — a traditional state function since medieval times.
He's saying we should regulate these companies like common carriers. He's saying we shouldn't be allowed to have our news feeds be generated or curated by systems. He's saying the broadcaster has a right to send stuff to our feed whether we want it or not.
I don’t see where he’s saying we can’t have automated moderation, though. Rather, just that there’s no 1A rights assumed for BigCorps’ systems, and that there’s a danger to individuals’ rights if the court really concludes that BigCorps do have these 1A rights.
> The next phase in this struggle will presumably concern the regulation of artificial intelligence. I fear that the First Amendment will be extended to protect machine speech — at considerable human cost.
This is an absurd position to take, and I do not know how you could arrive at this conclusion without being surrounded by yes-men and hypebeasts.
10 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 32.9 ms ] threadIt's unsurprising that the NYT is publishing this as they long held the attitude that the first amendment only applies to them and no one else.
Wu only considers the nature of common carrier from the perspective of those wishing to broadcast messages. Yes, like rail or telephones, people ought have access to a utility that cannot discriminate against them.
But far more messages are read than written. Vastly more. And the people on the receiving end have, in my view, some rights to have their expressivity desires matched & met. Just because someone wants to send messages at my, has access to a carrier of messages to me, doesn't mean I want those messages.
I want companies able to curate, sort, filter, prioritize the things coming at me (I also want to diy that too). These feel like speech rights I also have, the freedom to walk away, to not listen, that Wu is proposing should be stripped to satisfy the broadcaster's desires.
You should have the right to speak freely to all who wish to hear. They should have the right to hear if they want - and not to hear if they don't. That is free speech.
> By presuming that free speech protections apply to a tech company’s "curation" of content, even when that curation involves no human judgment, the Supreme Court weakens the ability of the government to regulate so-called common carriers like railroads and airlines — a traditional state function since medieval times.
He's saying we should regulate these companies like common carriers. He's saying we shouldn't be allowed to have our news feeds be generated or curated by systems. He's saying the broadcaster has a right to send stuff to our feed whether we want it or not.
This is an absurd position to take, and I do not know how you could arrive at this conclusion without being surrounded by yes-men and hypebeasts.