4 ms·

It's a difficult spot because social networks try to maintain a fiction that they're a public forum where free speech must be respected. As far as I know there

It's a difficult spot because social networks try to maintain a fiction that they're a public forum where free speech must be respected. As far as I know there is no legal precedent that this is so, and they're free to ban users/cull posts from their web sites as they see fit. Additionally, I'd say they have a responsibility to prevent their site from being used for certain purposes, though the boundaries of what's acceptable are tough to define. Reddit is not like an ISP, who can (until recently) claim that they're not responsible for traffic passing through their network, as reddit has no reasonable claim to be a "dumb pipe".

icebraining 9y ago
though the boundaries of what's acceptable are tough to define. After denying it, you just explained why it's a difficult spot. By the way, website are in fact not legally responsible for that traffic, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act[1], which the courts have upheld against sites like eBay, Google, Craigslist, Backpage and MySpace. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
- bittercynic 9y ago
  Thanks for the link! I only know as much about Section 230 as I just read at that link, but it seems that this doesn't provide protection for things like calling for violence against a religious/sexual/race group. I concede that the exact boundary of what is a call for violence is hard to pin down, but I don't think that makes it OK to throw up your hands and say "Anything goes on my site!"
  - icebraining 9y ago
    > it seems that this doesn't provide protection for things like calling for violence against a religious/sexual/race group. That's the job of the Constitution, as the SCOTUS made clear in Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which an actual KKK leader was being charged after participating in an armed rally and talked about getting revenge on various races and on those who supported them, like the President and Congress: "(..) the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
    - bittercynic 9y ago
      I think there's plenty of middle ground between "Providing a platform for hate speech is A-Okay!" and "We must silence those bigots at any cost!" At the moment, I'd say reddit is too permissive of hate speech. I acknowledge that this is a personal opinion, but I assert that it is a valid opinion.
taurath 9y ago
They're a public forum with none of the traditional social controls, because people can say anything behind a screen of anonymity. Its a public forum with almost 0 institutional memory, and true arguments can be avoided with the click of a mouse that wouldn't be possible in person.

icebraining 9y ago

though the boundaries of what's acceptable are tough to define. After denying it, you just explained why it's a difficult spot. By the way, website are in fact not legally responsible for that traffic, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act[1], which the courts have upheld against sites like eBay, Google, Craigslist, Backpage and MySpace. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

bittercynic 9y ago
Thanks for the link! I only know as much about Section 230 as I just read at that link, but it seems that this doesn't provide protection for things like calling for violence against a religious/sexual/race group. I concede that the exact boundary of what is a call for violence is hard to pin down, but I don't think that makes it OK to throw up your hands and say "Anything goes on my site!"
- icebraining 9y ago
  > it seems that this doesn't provide protection for things like calling for violence against a religious/sexual/race group. That's the job of the Constitution, as the SCOTUS made clear in Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which an actual KKK leader was being charged after participating in an armed rally and talked about getting revenge on various races and on those who supported them, like the President and Congress: "(..) the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
  - bittercynic 9y ago
    I think there's plenty of middle ground between "Providing a platform for hate speech is A-Okay!" and "We must silence those bigots at any cost!" At the moment, I'd say reddit is too permissive of hate speech. I acknowledge that this is a personal opinion, but I assert that it is a valid opinion.

taurath 9y ago

They're a public forum with none of the traditional social controls, because people can say anything behind a screen of anonymity. Its a public forum with almost 0 institutional memory, and true arguments can be avoided with the click of a mouse that wouldn't be possible in person.