> 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.<p>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.
Disappointing read from someone I trust.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
If anyone still takes this guy seriously it's time to reconsider.<p>It'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.