4 ms·

If those websites wish to police speech to this degree then they can reclassify themselves as publishers and accept all the legal burdens that come with it. At

by jsonne 8y ago

If those websites wish to police speech to this degree then they can reclassify themselves as publishers and accept all the legal burdens that come with it. At least then they'd be intellectually honest.

commoner 8y ago
Let's use Facebook as an example. The "Facebook © 2019" notice on each Facebook page tells users that they are on someone else's website. Next to the notice is a link to Facebook's terms of service, which discloses their "Community Standards". Facebook has been dishonest in many situations, but they don't hide their ability to moderate content in any way. It's certainly within one's right to be upset with Facebook's policies. If you feel strongly enough about this, you have the option to stop using Facebook, and you can switch to a different platform with policies that align more closely with your views. You can also publish your own website, where you can establish your own rules. But Facebook's website is not your property, so you can't graft your preferred rules onto Facebook. You can ask them nicely and you can apply social pressure, but Facebook makes the final decision on how they run themselves because the site is not yours.
- jsonne 8y ago
  Yeah that's not really the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that Facebook is acting as a publisher and publishers don't have DMCA protection which is what makes the model work. They want the privileges without the responsibility.
  - commoner 8y ago
    Facebook doesn't become a "publisher" by removing user-generated content from its platform. They'll continue to qualify for DMCA Title II's safe harbor provision as long as they take down copyright infringing material that gets reported to them. Facebook is not required to leave non-infringing material intact to be protected under DMCA Title II.

4 ms·

If those websites wish to police speech to this degree then they can reclassify themselves as publishers and accept all the legal burdens that come with it. At

by jsonne 8y ago

commoner 8y ago
Let's use Facebook as an example. The "Facebook © 2019" notice on each Facebook page tells users that they are on someone else's website. Next to the notice is a link to Facebook's terms of service, which discloses their "Community Standards". Facebook has been dishonest in many situations, but they don't hide their ability to moderate content in any way. It's certainly within one's right to be upset with Facebook's policies. If you feel strongly enough about this, you have the option to stop using Facebook, and you can switch to a different platform with policies that align more closely with your views. You can also publish your own website, where you can establish your own rules. But Facebook's website is not your property, so you can't graft your preferred rules onto Facebook. You can ask them nicely and you can apply social pressure, but Facebook makes the final decision on how they run themselves because the site is not yours.
- jsonne 8y ago
  Yeah that's not really the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that Facebook is acting as a publisher and publishers don't have DMCA protection which is what makes the model work. They want the privileges without the responsibility.
  - commoner 8y ago
    Facebook doesn't become a "publisher" by removing user-generated content from its platform. They'll continue to qualify for DMCA Title II's safe harbor provision as long as they take down copyright infringing material that gets reported to them. Facebook is not required to leave non-infringing material intact to be protected under DMCA Title II.