5 ms·
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
by 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 agoMaybe that means facebook shouldn't exist as it is today.
- antidesitter 7y agoHow so?
- 50656E6973 7y agoToo Big To Not Fail
- anoncake 7y agoFacebook 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 agoAccording 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...
- anoncake 7y ago> According to what legislation? The duty to be responsible has nothing to do with legislation.
- colordrops 7y agoThere's no reason a Facebook-like experience couldn't be developed using distributed technology like SMTP and HTTP. It's just that no one has garnered enough traction yet.
- shawnz 7y agoHow would that solve the issue of editorial control being impractical? It would make it strictly MORE impractical
- colordrops 7y agoIt would mostly make the question moot. In a federated system, there is no worry about a single entity exerting editorial control. Every instance can set their own policies for content and who they wish to federate with. Individual users can find or setup an instance that meets their own needs and requirements.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- antidesitter 7y agoI agree, but what’s the relevance of this to my comment?
- vinceguidry 7y agoThat's basically saying that there should be no online public forums for discourse, anywhere, because the scale means they can't be properly moderated.
- Mirioron 7y agoAnd to take this further: it also means that there should be no right to public assembly, because you can't moderate what's said there either.
- anoncake 7y agoNo, not at all. The argument is that since Facebook moderates their site according to their own arbitrary standards, it's not a place for public assembly but a publication that Facebook is responsible for as if it were a newspaper. If they did not moderate, it would not apply.
- fghtr 7y agoMastodon can help here, because it is not a single entity, but a federation with independent moderations.
- 50656E6973 7y agoIndeed. Distributed design is the intelligent way to go when it comes to mass communications systems. Too much centralization leads to many such problems