Law in the Internet Society

View   r3  >  r2  ...
EddyBrandtSecondEssay 3 - 31 Mar 2018 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondEssay"
Deleted:
<
<
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
 

Why Immunity?

The combination of judicial encroachment upon already limited immunity of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (230) with potential detriment to free expression and fledgling internet companies, the relative ease of self-regulation, and finally with the drawbacks of a size-based distinction for when to attach liability to platforms, militates against alteration of the well-struck balance of 230.
Line: 29 to 28
 While 230’s immunity is no longer vital to the mere survival of internet platforms, the law still strikes, from a possibility of immunity styles, the correct balance of respect for market-induced regulation and smaller internet companies with the potential for ongoing judicial regulation, and should thus be maintained.
Added:
>
>

I think it would have been better to put these ideas into the revision of the first essay and to choose a different topic for the second essay. Here the argument for self-regulation seems to be hinged, as large company propaganda usually is, on the poor small companies that will allegedly be harmed by regulation through legal liability. But if the analysis that behavior-collection for advertising targeting as a business model is the source of overconcentrating that requires radical re-decentralizing of the web is correct (as people from Tim Berners-Lee to, well, me, have been arguing for almost a decade) than the regulation of the duopoly garnering 99% of the world's new digital advertising revenue is hardly a threat to small entities. The argument is basically two straw men folded together: that the largest platforms are just larger versions of Eben and Eddy's websites, which is preposterous, and that the removal of an artificial subsidy provided through synthetic legal immunity cannot be so designed as to fall primarily on those whose market power (over small web entities in particular) requires full exposure to the ordinary rules of society.

If you had taken a job with Kevin Martin, this form of argument would be par for the course. But in an academic rather than purely hired-gun forensic setting, this sort of framing isn't ideal. Your argument should be in actual touch with the best points made on the other side.

 



Revision 3r3 - 31 Mar 2018 - 14:45:51 - EbenMoglen
Revision 2r2 - 20 Jan 2018 - 00:07:51 - EddyBrandt
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM