3 ms·
By refusing to publish something, they are no longer acting as a neutral platform. Losing the immunity that they get by being a neutral platform, means that cu
by stale2002 8y ago
By refusing to publish something, they are no longer acting as a neutral platform.
Losing the immunity that they get by being a neutral platform, means that current content on FB, that they were previously not liable for, they would now become liable for.
For example, if a user posts something illegal on FB, then Facebook could be sued, even if they remove the content as soon as they became aware of it. (In the same way that the NYT is responsible for the content on it's writers).
Think about how phone companies have immunity from someone making illegal phone calls, and then phone companies becoming liable for damages that they previously were not liable for previously.
- lgeorget 8y agoI'm not a lawyer, what are the legal basis for that "immunity" and the fact they lost it somehow?
- beagle3 8y agoFor telecomms, this is known as “common carrier” status; it means you are not liable for what goes through you, but to keep that status you must not filter anything either. If you do filter, you’re supposed to lose that status - and then you become liable for what goes through your pipes. I’m not sure there’s a similar legal concept for publishers.