The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Prof. Nicholas Nugent Guest-Blogging About "The Five Internet Rights"
I'm delighted to report that Prof. Nicholas Nugent (Univ. of Tennessee) will be guest-blogging this week about his new Washington Law Review article, The Five Internet Rights. The Abstract:
Since the dawn of the commercial internet, content moderation has operated under an implicit social contract that website operators could accept or reject users and content as they saw fit, but users in turn could self-publish their views on their own websites if no one else would have them. However, as online service providers and activists have become ever more innovative and aggressive in their efforts to deplatform controversial speakers, content moderation has progressively moved down into the core infrastructure of the internet, targeting critical resources, such as networks, domain names, and IP addresses, on which all websites depend. These innovations point to a world in which it may soon be possible for private gatekeepers to exclude unpopular users, groups, or viewpoints from the internet altogether, a phenomenon I call viewpoint foreclosure.
For more than three decades, internet scholars have searched, in vain, for a unifying theory of interventionism—a set of principles to guide when the law should intervene in the private moderation of lawful online content and what that intervention should look like. These efforts have failed precisely because they have focused on the wrong gatekeepers, scrutinizing the actions of social media companies, search engines, and other third-party websites—entities that directly publish, block, or link to user-generated content—while ignoring the core resources and providers that make internet speech possible in the first place. This Article is the first to articulate a workable theory of interventionism by focusing on the far more fundamental question of whether users should have any right to express themselves on the now fully privatized internet. By articulating a new theory premised on viewpoint access—the right to express one's views on the internet itself (rather than on any individual website)—I argue that the law need take account of only five basic non-discrimination rights to protect online expression from private interference—namely, the rights of connectivity, addressability, nameability, routability, and accessibility. Looking to property theory, internet architecture, and economic concepts around market entry barriers, it becomes clear that as long as these five fundamental internet rights are respected, users are never truly prevented from competing in the online marketplace of ideas, no matter the actions of any would-be deplatformer.
I much look forward to Prof. Nugent's posts.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"the now fully privatized internet"
So we're back to "private companies"? Elon Musk's revelations, etc., are forgotten?
What is it that you think Elon Musk revealed, etc., that demonstrates that the companies involved aren’t private?
"The creatures outside looked from public to private, and from private to public, and from public to private again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Apologies, I thought you were interested in making an actual point.
The point was obvious: Lots of these "private" companies work hand-in-glove as tools of the government, with people moving between public and private employers fluidly, bringing policies and compliance to government diktat with them. It's not formal state ownership of these firms, but rather extensive government direction and management -- what used to be called fascism.
Silicon Valley culture recognizes one legitimate set of political beliefs. Government prodding is often unnecessary to keep people like Trump on the fringes.
Musk is like the Mule in Asimov's Foundation. He doesn't fit the plan.
No. Musk revealed that Twitter was fully private and made its own moderation decisions, taking or ignoring the suggestions of private individuals and organizations as well as government employees, at the discretion of Twitter.
This is the best approach ASSUMING we properly enforce our antitrust laws against tech companies.
But we don’t want the bulk of Internet traffic controlled by a few companies who then use their power to ruin a fair exchange of ideas.
I believe that de facto censorship regimes are possible, especially if large tech companies adopt similar or identical moderation policies. Often in the name of pleasing the same few large advertisers. (Who, by the way, perhaps have excessive leverage as advertisers because antitrust laws have not been adequately enforced.)
Overall, I believe one lesson we can learn from this is that failure to enforce antitrust laws may have practical free speech implications, especially as technology advances. Whether it is the tech companies engaging in moderation due to employee pressure or due to the pressure of a few very large advertisers, the potential problem is the same, and that is that debate curtailed.
My practical concerns in this area have been temporarily assuaged by Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter. That this upset so many liberals shows how they were starting to look forward to a world where competing ideas were more suppressed and hidden as a practical matter.
But our ability to debate should not be dictated by who happens to be running large corporations that have been allowed to engage in excessive consolidation.
Anyway, I think this thesis is OK. But my concern is that it is too theoretical. Free speech means more than the freedom to shout into your closet. If we fail to use technology to increase the opportunities for debate in practice, then we will have failed. Mere theoretic accessibility is not enough. There must be practical accessibility, as measured by internet traffic, to options for a free and uncensored exchange of ideas.
Ultimately, democracy depends on the ability of people to communicate freely and without interference.
One has to keep a close eye on young people today! In his CV, the guest blogger cites a recent paper using a date of 15-Mar-2023 and a dysfunctional hyperlink. The cited work actually has a publication date of 14-Mar-2023 and is available at https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/social-media-isnt-public-function-maybe-internet
These companies still labor under threats to section 230, play ball censoring harrassment, including the harrassing tweets "of our (the politicians') political opponents", right before an election.
There is zero “private company doing its own thing” in this context.
To vindicate these rights may require "must carry" rules for app stores and DDoS mitigation and content delivery services.