3 ms·

Bad example. The college newspaper acts as an editor and has to review what content to publish before it's being published. The college will be held responsible

Bad example. The college newspaper acts as an editor and has to review what content to publish before it's being published. The college will be held responsible if there's misinformation or something of criminal nature being shared. FB pretends to be a medium of information for anyone and they don't moderate what is being published before being published. They do however have an obligation for content being distributed after if it's breaking the ToS or the laws. They have to take that down after the fact. Here the controversy as I see it, is to prevent a group from publishing if it's been labeled as "hate", or "white supremacist" content, where the labeling aspect is very subjective and arbitrary. Who's to decide the labeling?

ineedasername 8y ago
> The college will be held responsible if there's misinformation or something of criminal nature being shared. This is precisely the dynamic that is driving facebook. I don't think the comparison to a newspaper is perfect, but I do think it's apt. In both cases, neither venue is obligated to give anyone their own soapbox to stand on. That was my point.
- alexandre_m 8y ago
  The problem with FB is they want all the benefits of a platform without any of the drawbacks. Or rather, it's the public perception of what FB should be and FB is stuck in the middle juggling with politics. Obviously if you're a shareholder then you want to play it cool with the medias and portray a good image of the company. I just think it's bad policy.