7 ms·

Platforms Are Not Publishers

18 points by raleighm 8y ago

criddell 8y ago
I've never understood why people try to classify Google, Facebook, and Twitter as publishers xor platforms. It seems to me that they do both in varying degrees (especially Google).
- CM30 8y ago
  To be honest, these platforms are whatever one is more convenient for them at the time. Is someone doing something controversial/unpopular on their platform/attacking them? Then they're a 'publisher' with the right to dictate what's allowed. Are they getting sued/complained about for illegal content/not moderating their site? Then suddenly they're a 'platform', who only has to handle issues when forced to. That's the truth about all online services; they change what they class themselves as whenever the alternative is too 'inconvenient' for them.
- berbec 8y ago
  Their platforms in that they bring news, information etc to you. Their publishers in that the serve the same function as the NY Times etc - distilling information to relevent/interesting things.
- vetinari 8y ago
  Publishers have editorial control, platforms do not. That's why you can be one or the other, but not both.
  - criddell 8y ago
    But Google, for example, produces original content on YouTube and YouTube is also a platform for other people doing the same. They are both.
    - vetinari 8y ago
      Editorial control is about capability of checking and filtering others' content, not your own. Platforms can also use their own products (ISPs themselves use internet or Amazon also uses AWS). Platforms are shielded by CDA exactly because they do not care about the content that goes through it. The moment you demonstrate that you have the capability and intent to filter, you will get responsible for doing so. So no, they still are not both. By editorializing others' content, the CDA protections are void.
      - criddell 8y ago
        With their YouTube Originals channel and all the other channels they fund, Google is clearly a publisher. You wouldn't claim they have no editorial control over YouTube Originals, right?
        vetinari 8y ago
        Editorial control over Youtube, not just Youtube Originals. Again, similarly just because some ISPs uses their own internet connection and can manage filter the traffic for internal use, does not mean they are responsible for filtering every connection they provide to customers. Or telcos, they also run some phone subscriptions, but are not responsible for every phone subscription in their network. Because they are platform, even as a user of their own platform they have certain control over their own use.
        criddell 8y ago
        So I think we are back to where we started. Sometimes Google is a publisher and sometimes Google is a platform.
        vetinari 8y ago
        We are back to where we started only in the sense, that some people still do not understand that these two are mutually exclusive. Once you cross the Rubicon from the platform to the publisher, there is no way back and CDA no longer applies.
charlesism 8y ago
> The internet connects more than 3 billion people > and enables a grand diversity among them to speak, > if not yet to be heard. “Republics,” said the late > Columbia University professor James Carey, “require > conversation, often cacophonous conversation, for > they should be noisy places.” That sound you hear, > which sometimes grates, is the racket of society > negotiating its norms and standards, its future. > It is the messy sound of democracy. Nope, you have trolls and extremist groups gleefully spraying toxic garbage over everything, until decent, mature people abandon the site. Sane people don't post on Youtube. Some sane people post on Twitter, etc... but they eventually give up. If graffiti on a toilet stall is the standard for online "democracy," we'll never solve any problems, and only the worst people among us will actually benefit from freedom of expression. Any site today that doesn't have iron-clad moderation (like this one!) devolves into an inhumane freak show.
- aokiji 8y ago
  (disclaimer: this is not an ad-hominem) charlesism, you are blatantly promoting an agenda of censorship. One should not behave well due to the threat of punishment but by virtue of virtue. You appear to stand against everything of value in the West. There are corporations and special interest groups trying to influence the narrative in reddit and even here in order to further reduce online freedoms and to establish the official list of forbidden thoughts. Furthermore, The Atlantic has a long number of articles promoting globalism and the destruction of nation-states. A true free market of ideas requires anonymity. Who is going to help you when rampant corruption emerges in organizations such as the United Nations (a known harbor for individuals involved in child traffic scandals)? Remember the gamergate fiasco? People all over the world are angry, and it is not their fault entirely - overpopulation and resource depletion need to be dealt with. But why doesn't anyone seem care about raising the bar on education, not just in terms of skill sets but also morality and long-term thinking?
  - charlesism 8y ago
    > you are blatantly promoting an agenda of censorship. Private censorship? You bet! > You appear to stand against everything of value in the West Come back to earth, please. > The Atlantic has a long number of articles promoting globalism > and the destruction of nation-states. Good, I support that. > People all over the world are angry, and it is not their fault entirely I've lived long enough to see how all this came to pass. People are angry at the wrong people and the wrong things.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
yifanl 8y ago
If you're making a profit off of the content you're hosting, then as far as I'm concerned, you should be held responsible for that content.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
shiburizu 8y ago
I don't think you get to make the "internet is a public square" argument while also advocating for banning opinions from the same. I can stand in Times Square saying Romaine Lettuce is the best lettuce of all time and people might think I'm stupid (or might not) but I get to say that all I want provided I'm not being a nuisance. Disclaimer: this is NOT a defense for incitement to violence. Let's roll with the physical-digital analogy for a second here: When I go to the convenience store to buy a muffin in the morning, right next to the register the clerk usually has the daily paper sitting on the countertop and I can buy a copy if I think the headline it's worth reading. Or perhaps I can hear the news playing overhead on some TV in a store as I walk around looking for items. Social media currently works like if my muffin was sitting between a copy of the Times and a coupon catalog when I went to the store to go look for it. I am able to look at what I want in pieces when I go to the store, and the cluttered mess of content in the timeline is a conscious choice to keep people looking at ads and reading sensational headlines. But here's where I keep doubting myself from playing the defense of absolute free speech in this situation: I read an article here on HN recently and commented that these situations always seem to play out through media orgs. Infowars, CNN, even The Atlantic are all companies vying to get some of that sweet sweet user interaction through gaming the platforms. They are frequently condensing their content into auto-playing videos on user timelines, publishing sensational titles in the post text linking to their articles, etc. I can hardly name instances where this was about a user with no media presence. It's almost like media orgs leverage their huge presence to push their own survival.
snowwrestler 8y ago
I agree with the headline, but the hard part is defining what a platform is. I don't think we should just accept anyone who raises their hand and says "hey I'm a platform, guys!" Maybe one distinguishing feature of a platform vs a publisher is curation. Verizon does not choose which phone calls I get--it routes them all. My DNS provider does not choose which requests to resolve; it resolves them all. Heck, the interstate highway carries any vehicle that meets standard specs for safety. Those are platforms. If Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc simply and directly routed content without curation, they would have a stronger claim on being a platform. Instead, they use filtered timelines and "suggested content" to make decisions about what people see. That's more akin to what the Washington Post does, than Verizon. Social media platforms will claim they use algorithms instead of human judgment to route content, so it's unbiased. Does anybody still buy that?? The many ways in which "smart" algorithms can be biased have been well covered. If nothing else, they are biased in favor of content that generates the fiercest emotions, in the name of "engagement." And why do they do that? I would suggest another distinguishing feature of a platform vs a publisher is the business model. Platforms are fee-for-service. You pay your ISP a fee, and it delivers the service. You pay a gas tax, and the government provides your roads. Publishers have an advertising business model. This creates an incentive for them to manipulate you in ways that increase advertising. Your ISP does not care if you use their service... in fact, they get better profit margins if you don't! But Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube do care, and they take active steps (see: curation) to manipulate you into doing so.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> To call these platforms publishers—as The Atlantic’s Adrienne LaFrance recently did—is to presume that their task is merely to produce content. No, publishers don't, as an essential feature, produce (in an original sense) content, they distribute it (which involves reproducing it, but that's different than producing it.) Some publishers do also control content creation, though many primarily it entirely acquire content from third-party creators. The entire article and it's rejection of the idea that internet platforms are publishers rests on this bizarre error (it's not bizarre as a misunderstanding in the public, but it is bizarre how it can get published in a professionally edited media outlet, where presumably before publication at least one person basically aware of what publishers are had to have read and signed off on it.)

18 points by raleighm 8y ago

I've never understood why people try to classify Google, Facebook, and Twitter as publishers xor platforms. It seems to me that they do both in varying degrees (especially Google).

CM30 8y ago
To be honest, these platforms are whatever one is more convenient for them at the time. Is someone doing something controversial/unpopular on their platform/attacking them? Then they're a 'publisher' with the right to dictate what's allowed. Are they getting sued/complained about for illegal content/not moderating their site? Then suddenly they're a 'platform', who only has to handle issues when forced to. That's the truth about all online services; they change what they class themselves as whenever the alternative is too 'inconvenient' for them.
berbec 8y ago
Their platforms in that they bring news, information etc to you. Their publishers in that the serve the same function as the NY Times etc - distilling information to relevent/interesting things.
vetinari 8y ago
Publishers have editorial control, platforms do not. That's why you can be one or the other, but not both.
- criddell 8y ago
  But Google, for example, produces original content on YouTube and YouTube is also a platform for other people doing the same. They are both.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    Editorial control is about capability of checking and filtering others' content, not your own. Platforms can also use their own products (ISPs themselves use internet or Amazon also uses AWS). Platforms are shielded by CDA exactly because they do not care about the content that goes through it. The moment you demonstrate that you have the capability and intent to filter, you will get responsible for doing so. So no, they still are not both. By editorializing others' content, the CDA protections are void.
    - criddell 8y ago
      With their YouTube Originals channel and all the other channels they fund, Google is clearly a publisher. You wouldn't claim they have no editorial control over YouTube Originals, right?
      - vetinari 8y ago
        Editorial control over Youtube, not just Youtube Originals. Again, similarly just because some ISPs uses their own internet connection and can manage filter the traffic for internal use, does not mean they are responsible for filtering every connection they provide to customers. Or telcos, they also run some phone subscriptions, but are not responsible for every phone subscription in their network. Because they are platform, even as a user of their own platform they have certain control over their own use.
        criddell 8y ago
        So I think we are back to where we started. Sometimes Google is a publisher and sometimes Google is a platform.
        vetinari 8y ago
        We are back to where we started only in the sense, that some people still do not understand that these two are mutually exclusive. Once you cross the Rubicon from the platform to the publisher, there is no way back and CDA no longer applies.

charlesism 8y ago

> The internet connects more than 3 billion people > and enables a grand diversity among them to speak, > if not yet to be heard. “Republics,” said the late > Columbia University professor James Carey, “require > conversation, often cacophonous conversation, for > they should be noisy places.” That sound you hear, > which sometimes grates, is the racket of society > negotiating its norms and standards, its future. > It is the messy sound of democracy. Nope, you have trolls and extremist groups gleefully spraying toxic garbage over everything, until decent, mature people abandon the site. Sane people don't post on Youtube. Some sane people post on Twitter, etc... but they eventually give up. If graffiti on a toilet stall is the standard for online "democracy," we'll never solve any problems, and only the worst people among us will actually benefit from freedom of expression. Any site today that doesn't have iron-clad moderation (like this one!) devolves into an inhumane freak show.

aokiji 8y ago
(disclaimer: this is not an ad-hominem) charlesism, you are blatantly promoting an agenda of censorship. One should not behave well due to the threat of punishment but by virtue of virtue. You appear to stand against everything of value in the West. There are corporations and special interest groups trying to influence the narrative in reddit and even here in order to further reduce online freedoms and to establish the official list of forbidden thoughts. Furthermore, The Atlantic has a long number of articles promoting globalism and the destruction of nation-states. A true free market of ideas requires anonymity. Who is going to help you when rampant corruption emerges in organizations such as the United Nations (a known harbor for individuals involved in child traffic scandals)? Remember the gamergate fiasco? People all over the world are angry, and it is not their fault entirely - overpopulation and resource depletion need to be dealt with. But why doesn't anyone seem care about raising the bar on education, not just in terms of skill sets but also morality and long-term thinking?
- charlesism 8y ago
  > you are blatantly promoting an agenda of censorship. Private censorship? You bet! > You appear to stand against everything of value in the West Come back to earth, please. > The Atlantic has a long number of articles promoting globalism > and the destruction of nation-states. Good, I support that. > People all over the world are angry, and it is not their fault entirely I've lived long enough to see how all this came to pass. People are angry at the wrong people and the wrong things.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

yifanl 8y ago

If you're making a profit off of the content you're hosting, then as far as I'm concerned, you should be held responsible for that content.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

shiburizu 8y ago

I don't think you get to make the "internet is a public square" argument while also advocating for banning opinions from the same. I can stand in Times Square saying Romaine Lettuce is the best lettuce of all time and people might think I'm stupid (or might not) but I get to say that all I want provided I'm not being a nuisance. Disclaimer: this is NOT a defense for incitement to violence. Let's roll with the physical-digital analogy for a second here: When I go to the convenience store to buy a muffin in the morning, right next to the register the clerk usually has the daily paper sitting on the countertop and I can buy a copy if I think the headline it's worth reading. Or perhaps I can hear the news playing overhead on some TV in a store as I walk around looking for items. Social media currently works like if my muffin was sitting between a copy of the Times and a coupon catalog when I went to the store to go look for it. I am able to look at what I want in pieces when I go to the store, and the cluttered mess of content in the timeline is a conscious choice to keep people looking at ads and reading sensational headlines. But here's where I keep doubting myself from playing the defense of absolute free speech in this situation: I read an article here on HN recently and commented that these situations always seem to play out through media orgs. Infowars, CNN, even The Atlantic are all companies vying to get some of that sweet sweet user interaction through gaming the platforms. They are frequently condensing their content into auto-playing videos on user timelines, publishing sensational titles in the post text linking to their articles, etc. I can hardly name instances where this was about a user with no media presence. It's almost like media orgs leverage their huge presence to push their own survival.

snowwrestler 8y ago

I agree with the headline, but the hard part is defining what a platform is. I don't think we should just accept anyone who raises their hand and says "hey I'm a platform, guys!" Maybe one distinguishing feature of a platform vs a publisher is curation. Verizon does not choose which phone calls I get--it routes them all. My DNS provider does not choose which requests to resolve; it resolves them all. Heck, the interstate highway carries any vehicle that meets standard specs for safety. Those are platforms. If Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc simply and directly routed content without curation, they would have a stronger claim on being a platform. Instead, they use filtered timelines and "suggested content" to make decisions about what people see. That's more akin to what the Washington Post does, than Verizon. Social media platforms will claim they use algorithms instead of human judgment to route content, so it's unbiased. Does anybody still buy that?? The many ways in which "smart" algorithms can be biased have been well covered. If nothing else, they are biased in favor of content that generates the fiercest emotions, in the name of "engagement." And why do they do that? I would suggest another distinguishing feature of a platform vs a publisher is the business model. Platforms are fee-for-service. You pay your ISP a fee, and it delivers the service. You pay a gas tax, and the government provides your roads. Publishers have an advertising business model. This creates an incentive for them to manipulate you in ways that increase advertising. Your ISP does not care if you use their service... in fact, they get better profit margins if you don't! But Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube do care, and they take active steps (see: curation) to manipulate you into doing so.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> To call these platforms publishers—as The Atlantic’s Adrienne LaFrance recently did—is to presume that their task is merely to produce content. No, publishers don't, as an essential feature, produce (in an original sense) content, they distribute it (which involves reproducing it, but that's different than producing it.) Some publishers do also control content creation, though many primarily it entirely acquire content from third-party creators. The entire article and it's rejection of the idea that internet platforms are publishers rests on this bizarre error (it's not bizarre as a misunderstanding in the public, but it is bizarre how it can get published in a professionally edited media outlet, where presumably before publication at least one person basically aware of what publishers are had to have read and signed off on it.)