<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 25 February 2015 08:05 AM,
Barry Shein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:21741.13583.316636.321410@world.std.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
snip
Whatever happened to the theory that if you act as the censor then you
can be held responsible for the content (e.g., failure to perform
liability when some kid gets porn this way anyhow)?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, this is a very important point. There is obviously a big
paradox in these Internet majors both claiming no intermediary
liability and also the right to control the content on their
platforms. Logically, it can either be one or the other. <br>
<br>
What such paradoxes of this new situation - where private players
fully own and control monopoly spaces underpinning key sectors of
social activity - point to is something much larger. Something which
public interest groups have not given adequate attention - as
evident from some bland responses to the earlier thread on
'monetising socialisation' referring to a very problematic - ad hoc
, not transparent and non (publicly) accountable - practice of
Facebook. This present issue about Google's sudden decision is of a
similar kind (although, I I must admit, perhaps both the monopoly
element and lock-in element is relatively lesser in case of google's
'blogger platform' that its search platform and Facebook's social
networking platforms). <br>
<br>
What we need is a much more serious discussion on how to meet public
interest requirements in these new conditions of an Internet
mediated society, where its key social activity spaces are digitally
mediated by monopoly platforms owned by corporate giants, who act as
per their will. ( I am surprised that a few people here do not
consider this as one of the most important IG issues, but well to
each one's own.) . Putting the proverbial ostrich's head in the
sand, which has been the mainstream civil society response, or to
hope that talks with MNCs or civil society ratings will make the
problem go away, is obviously not fine. But we seem to be doing
little else, as the techno-social architecture of a new social
system seem to be getting concretised around us, and soon it may be
too late.<br>
<br>
At a very high level, one can say that such key monopoly social
platforms should<br>
<br>
(1) either be directly owned by the public (which is not what most
of us want in most of the cases, although in some areas, like shown
by the movement for community owned broadband network, such public/
community ownership needs to be explored and this option cannot just
be dismissed out of hand).<br>
<br>
(2) or they are subject to strong public interest regulation, based
on clearly laid of norms, public policy principles and regulatory
rules and structures. <br>
<br>
This obviously leads us to the question of how to devise such norms,
principles and regulatory structures for what is in larger part a
'global Internet'. There is no escape from this question, although
most of us have spent more than a decade now trying to escape this
question (or coming up with limp, if not uprightly problematic
responses, like the Net Mundial Initiative). It is time we devote
ourselves to this question. We need an adequately federated response
to this key issue of global governance of the Internet: while the
final political and regulatory authority can only be anchored at the
national level, we need global norms, principles, and structures for
building common policy responses, model laws and regulatory systems,
and means of their regular coordination. (And God forbid if these
are made at the World Social Forum!) I dont see any other way for us
to go - unless of course we go towards fully national Internets. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:21741.13583.316636.321410@world.std.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Did that have no legal basis? Is there any case trail?
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>