![]() At the same time, in many cases both speakers and audiences will not be aware of the identities of these support services and, even if they are, have no independent relationship with them. So these service are more likely to simply cut a user or platform off than do a deeper review. Faced with a complaint, takedown will be much easier and cheaper than a nuanced analysis of a given user’s speech, much less an analysis of the speech that might be hosted by a company that is a user of their services. These intermediaries provide the infrastructure for speech and commerce, but many have only the most tangential relationship to their users. EFF has a handy chart of some of those key links between speakers and their audience here. In between are a wide array of intermediaries, such as upstream hosts like AWS, domain name registrars, certificate authorities (such as Let’s Encrypt ), content delivery networks (CDNs), payment processors, and email services. The adage “if you don’t like the rules, go elsewhere” doesn’t work when there is nowhere else to go. ![]() For example, it would be very concerning if the only broadband provider in your area cut you off because they didn’t like what you said online -or what someone else whose name is on the account said. Decisions made by companies at this layer of the stack to remove content or users raise greater concerns for free expression, especially when there are few if any competitors. The closer to the user end, the more likely it is that sites will have more developed and apparent curatorial and editorial policies and practices -their "signature styles." Finally, users typically have an avenue, flawed as it may be, to communicate directly with the service.Īt the other end of the stack are internet service providers (ISPs), like Comcast or AT&T. Users may also specifically seek out the sites for their content. Users are often required to have individual accounts or advantaged if they do. They are also the places people think of when they think of the content itself (i.e.,“I saw it on Facebook”). These are the sites and services that all users (both content creators and content consumers) interact with most directly. For instance, a discussion forum lies close to the top of the stack: if you are booted from such a platform, there are other venues in which you can exercise your speech. Their responses can be comparatively targeted to specific users and content and, most importantly, do not cut off as many alternatives. As researcher Joan Donovan puts it, “ At every level of the tech stack, corporations are placed in positions to make value judgments regarding the legitimacy of content, including who should have access, and when and how.” And the decisions made by companies at varying layers of the stack are bound to have different impacts on free expression.Īt the top of the stack are services like Facebook, Reddit, or Twitter, platforms whose decisions about who to serve (or what to allow) are comparatively visible, though still far too opaque to most users. To see the implications of censorship choices by deeper stack companies, let’s back up for a minute. The Free Speech Stack-aka “Free Speech Chokepoints” But that refusal carries different risks when a group of companies comes together to ensure that forums for speech or speakers are effectively taken offline altogether. law to refuse to host or support speech they don’t like. Private companies have strong legal rights under U.S. Whatever you think of Parler, these decisions should give you pause. Parler has so far struggled to return online, partly through errors of its own making, but also because the lower down the technical stack, the harder it is to find alternatives, or re-implement what capabilities the Internet has taken for granted. Infrastructure companies much closer to the bottom of the technical “stack” - including Amazon Web Services (AWS), and Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS app stores -decided to cut off service to that alternative platform - i.e., not just to an individual but to an entire site. ![]() ![]() This week, the response has taken a new turn by targeting. ![]() Many of the president’s followers responded by moving to an alternative platform, Parler. That was notable enough, given that both companies had previously treated the president, like other political leaders, as largely exempt from content moderation rules. Last week, following riots that saw supporters of President Trump breach and sack parts of the Capitol building, Facebook and Twitter made the decision to give the president the boot. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |