9 ms·

It's fully appropriate to consider Facebook the publisher of everything on their site. They exercise editorial control.

cameronbrown 7y ago
Point is that many disagree they should. If we take that Facebook is a critical network owned by a company, just like the internet is a critical network owned by many companies, is it not reasonable to assume it is infrastructure and not a publisher? Not saying I agree or disagree, just playing devil's advocate.
- root_axis 7y ago
  Facebook is definitely not a "critical network". It is a privately owned network operated by a corporation, it is not "critical" or even necessary, in fact, studies suggest increased use of Facebook correlates with poor mental health. Certainly, nobody needs access to Facebook.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    I agree in principle, but as a news publisher, you practically have to use Facebook to stay relevant. Same goes for Google to a lesser degree. All the laws like the EUs article 13 were tools in the fight between publishers and the internet giants. They just have the masses of users.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      You agree in principle that nobody needs Facebook while acknowledging that somebody needs Facebook?
      - riskable 7y ago
        As a business you need a way to engage with potential or existing customers. Yesterday that "way" was to pay newspapers, the Yellow Pages, etc to place ads. Then it moved to banner ads on various websites and today they use Facebook and Google (and other publishers/communities where people gather). If both Facebook and Google were to disappear business would just use whatever replaces them. The companies aren't essential. The service they provide is. The good news is that service can be provided by basically any business. It's just a problem concentration/monopoly that they're the current focus.
        anoncake 7y ago
        The world does not need Facebook. If Facebook went away, people would use another service to find and communicate with businesses. Businesses would use another service to be found and be communicated with. But today, people need Facebook because businesses (and other people) use Facebook and businesses need Facebook because people use Facebook. Facebook is completely replaceable for society, but that doesn't make it less critical for many individuals.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      And if FB went away tomorrow the companies would find another way. It's not like they weren't successful before FB came around. FB is only "critical" for as long as it exists in it's current form... which makes it not at all critical to begin with.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        Right. This entire argument is semantics on the word 'critical'. FB is a "should probably be using" for publishers or ecommerce companies, but FB is not a critical component. Reading this thread makes me think that some want FB to be a critical component simply because it makes a good premise for the argument of shutting FB down.
        anoncake 7y ago
        Odd. Reading this thread makes me think that some want FB not to be a critical component because it makes a good premise for the argument of letting them do whatever they want.
        EpicEng 7y ago
        ...I think Facebook has won
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > Certainly, nobody needs access to Facebook. Nobody needs electricity either. The Amish get by without and I wouldn't be surprised if they had better mental health than us. Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional. Claiming that Facebook is comparable to ELECTRICITY is delusional. Facebook is a website, it is not critical national infrastructure that underpins literally every economic activity in the country lol.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Well, I have just compared them. If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting. Also, claiming that electricity is "critical" is delusional because agriculture is even more important.
        root_axis 7y ago
        > Well, I have just compared them. Brilliant retort. Next you'll compare Twitter to health insurance I bet. > If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting. I understand the comparison just fine, what's embarrassing is the absurdity of the comparison. The burden of proof is on you to explain why a fundamental lynchpin of our economy for 150 years is comparable in necessity to a single social media website.
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        Just like electricity, Facebook is an enabler of business, just on a higher level. That being said, I don't believe it's as important, just that some kind of a comparison can be made. The reason I think it is important is that FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends. Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech.
- avar 7y ago
  They themselves have said they should. They actively censor their platform and enforce an editorial policy on the basis of their own business interests, nobody made them do that. The Signal IM program is also run by a company. Unlike Facebook you could argue that what they're running is infrastructure. They aren't trying to say censor Alex Jones to be more appealing to advertisers. Facebook is fully within their rights to run their company like that, but they can't expect to also have governments view them a common carrier when they're anything but.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Not as long as they have "community standards".
50656E6973 7y ago
No, it's not feasible for a few thousand people to exercise "editorial control" on billions of people. This isn't at all like a newspaper which only has to do that on a few hundred people. Scale matters!
- danharaj 7y ago
  Maybe that means facebook shouldn't exist as it is today.
  - antidesitter 7y ago
    How so?
    - 50656E6973 7y ago
      Too Big To Not Fail
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Facebook exercises editorial control on their website. That makes them its publisher and thus responsible for all content. If they cannot publish Facebook responsibly, they cannot publish it period.
      - antidesitter 7y ago
        According to what legislation? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act states [0]: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Exercising editorial control does not make them liable for all content [1]: Courts have consistently held that exercising traditional editorial functions over user-submitted content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, is immunized under Section 230. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants interactive online services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from tort liability so long as the information at issue is provided by a third party. See [2] for some examples of online activities that are covered. [0] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 [1] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-u... [2] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/online-activities-covered-section-230 http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/online-activities-covered-se...
lixtra 7y ago
In that case they should be held responsible for everything “they publish” from the first second on.
shstalwart 7y ago
An alternative point of says they are platform which is censored.

Point is that many disagree they should. If we take that Facebook is a critical network owned by a company, just like the internet is a critical network owned by many companies, is it not reasonable to assume it is infrastructure and not a publisher? Not saying I agree or disagree, just playing devil's advocate.

root_axis 7y ago
Facebook is definitely not a "critical network". It is a privately owned network operated by a corporation, it is not "critical" or even necessary, in fact, studies suggest increased use of Facebook correlates with poor mental health. Certainly, nobody needs access to Facebook.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  I agree in principle, but as a news publisher, you practically have to use Facebook to stay relevant. Same goes for Google to a lesser degree. All the laws like the EUs article 13 were tools in the fight between publishers and the internet giants. They just have the masses of users.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    You agree in principle that nobody needs Facebook while acknowledging that somebody needs Facebook?
    - riskable 7y ago
      As a business you need a way to engage with potential or existing customers. Yesterday that "way" was to pay newspapers, the Yellow Pages, etc to place ads. Then it moved to banner ads on various websites and today they use Facebook and Google (and other publishers/communities where people gather). If both Facebook and Google were to disappear business would just use whatever replaces them. The companies aren't essential. The service they provide is. The good news is that service can be provided by basically any business. It's just a problem concentration/monopoly that they're the current focus.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        The world does not need Facebook. If Facebook went away, people would use another service to find and communicate with businesses. Businesses would use another service to be found and be communicated with. But today, people need Facebook because businesses (and other people) use Facebook and businesses need Facebook because people use Facebook. Facebook is completely replaceable for society, but that doesn't make it less critical for many individuals.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    And if FB went away tomorrow the companies would find another way. It's not like they weren't successful before FB came around. FB is only "critical" for as long as it exists in it's current form... which makes it not at all critical to begin with.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Right. This entire argument is semantics on the word 'critical'. FB is a "should probably be using" for publishers or ecommerce companies, but FB is not a critical component. Reading this thread makes me think that some want FB to be a critical component simply because it makes a good premise for the argument of shutting FB down.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Odd. Reading this thread makes me think that some want FB not to be a critical component because it makes a good premise for the argument of letting them do whatever they want.
        EpicEng 7y ago
        ...I think Facebook has won
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- anoncake 7y ago
  > Certainly, nobody needs access to Facebook. Nobody needs electricity either. The Amish get by without and I wouldn't be surprised if they had better mental health than us. Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional. Claiming that Facebook is comparable to ELECTRICITY is delusional. Facebook is a website, it is not critical national infrastructure that underpins literally every economic activity in the country lol.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Well, I have just compared them. If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting. Also, claiming that electricity is "critical" is delusional because agriculture is even more important.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        > Well, I have just compared them. Brilliant retort. Next you'll compare Twitter to health insurance I bet. > If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting. I understand the comparison just fine, what's embarrassing is the absurdity of the comparison. The burden of proof is on you to explain why a fundamental lynchpin of our economy for 150 years is comparable in necessity to a single social media website.
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        Just like electricity, Facebook is an enabler of business, just on a higher level. That being said, I don't believe it's as important, just that some kind of a comparison can be made. The reason I think it is important is that FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends. Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech.
avar 7y ago
They themselves have said they should. They actively censor their platform and enforce an editorial policy on the basis of their own business interests, nobody made them do that. The Signal IM program is also run by a company. Unlike Facebook you could argue that what they're running is infrastructure. They aren't trying to say censor Alex Jones to be more appealing to advertisers. Facebook is fully within their rights to run their company like that, but they can't expect to also have governments view them a common carrier when they're anything but.
anoncake 7y ago
Not as long as they have "community standards".

50656E6973 7y ago

No, it's not feasible for a few thousand people to exercise "editorial control" on billions of people. This isn't at all like a newspaper which only has to do that on a few hundred people. Scale matters!

danharaj 7y ago
Maybe that means facebook shouldn't exist as it is today.
- antidesitter 7y ago
  How so?
  - 50656E6973 7y ago
    Too Big To Not Fail
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Facebook exercises editorial control on their website. That makes them its publisher and thus responsible for all content. If they cannot publish Facebook responsibly, they cannot publish it period.
    - antidesitter 7y ago
      According to what legislation? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act states [0]: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Exercising editorial control does not make them liable for all content [1]: Courts have consistently held that exercising traditional editorial functions over user-submitted content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, is immunized under Section 230. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants interactive online services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from tort liability so long as the information at issue is provided by a third party. See [2] for some examples of online activities that are covered. [0] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 [1] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-u... [2] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/online-activities-covered-section-230 http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/online-activities-covered-se...

lixtra 7y ago

In that case they should be held responsible for everything “they publish” from the first second on.

shstalwart 7y ago

An alternative point of says they are platform which is censored.