5 ms·

> It is exerting editorial control in this case. > Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow. I see this sentiment often on HN, as if the

> It is exerting editorial control in this case. > Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow. I see this sentiment often on HN, as if the latter somehow logically and necessarily follows from the former. It doesn't, and if that is what you advocate then you should justify it with proper arguments.

vowelless 8y ago
The argument is about whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher. This discussion has been going on for years and not just on HN. Being a platform, like ATT telephone lines, bring certain protections from lawsuits of content. The core of net neutrality is also based on a similar idea; with net neutrality, platforms (cable companies) can not between distinguish services (like throttling Netflix). In the exact same vein, if Facebook is a platform, it cannot distinguish between the “services” (users producing the content) unless that content is federally criminally illegal. With this, they are not liable for civil matters like slander. However, if Facebook is a publisher, meaning it can editorialize the content (similar to att choosing to throttle Netflix ), then it will become liable just like every other publishing company (nytimes, nymag, Rolling Stones, you name it). Hope this helps. There is a lot more info about this on the internet. There were even House hearings on this topic. I encourage you to go look them up.
- threeseed 8y ago
  All manners of platforms have terms of services that you must comply with it to be allow you to use that platform. It's not like you are given full freedom to just do whatever you want. Facebook is no different in this respect. You make it sound like platforms are these wild west environments where anything goes. It's not like that.
- balfirevic 8y ago
  > Hope this helps. Thanks for the clarification, but I don't find it convincing. I disagree with the underlying premise that we should clump social media into (only) two categories (platforms and publishers) where if you exercise any editorial control you are immediately categorized as "publisher" (category that is appropriate for an entity that explicitly and deliberately chooses everything it publishes) and where only "platforms" are protected from lawsuit about their users' content.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - MockObject 8y ago
    > I disagree with the underlying premise that we should clump social media into (only) two categories (platforms and publishers) If I'm not mistaken, this is a matter of existing case law, so our agreement or disagreement doesn't really matter.

vowelless 8y ago

The argument is about whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher. This discussion has been going on for years and not just on HN. Being a platform, like ATT telephone lines, bring certain protections from lawsuits of content. The core of net neutrality is also based on a similar idea; with net neutrality, platforms (cable companies) can not between distinguish services (like throttling Netflix). In the exact same vein, if Facebook is a platform, it cannot distinguish between the “services” (users producing the content) unless that content is federally criminally illegal. With this, they are not liable for civil matters like slander. However, if Facebook is a publisher, meaning it can editorialize the content (similar to att choosing to throttle Netflix ), then it will become liable just like every other publishing company (nytimes, nymag, Rolling Stones, you name it). Hope this helps. There is a lot more info about this on the internet. There were even House hearings on this topic. I encourage you to go look them up.

threeseed 8y ago
All manners of platforms have terms of services that you must comply with it to be allow you to use that platform. It's not like you are given full freedom to just do whatever you want. Facebook is no different in this respect. You make it sound like platforms are these wild west environments where anything goes. It's not like that.
balfirevic 8y ago
> Hope this helps. Thanks for the clarification, but I don't find it convincing. I disagree with the underlying premise that we should clump social media into (only) two categories (platforms and publishers) where if you exercise any editorial control you are immediately categorized as "publisher" (category that is appropriate for an entity that explicitly and deliberately chooses everything it publishes) and where only "platforms" are protected from lawsuit about their users' content.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- MockObject 8y ago
  > I disagree with the underlying premise that we should clump social media into (only) two categories (platforms and publishers) If I'm not mistaken, this is a matter of existing case law, so our agreement or disagreement doesn't really matter.