3 ms·

No it's not, if Facebook / Youtube / etc are found to be PUBLISHERS. AOL in the case you mentioned was being looked at as an open / neutral platform. I'm sayi

by skrowl 7y ago

No it's not, if Facebook / Youtube / etc are found to be PUBLISHERS. AOL in the case you mentioned was being looked at as an open / neutral platform. I'm saying that clearly Facebook / Youtube no longer fit that definition due to the censorship mentioned in OP.

javagram 7y ago
The law is specifically written for that case, as noted in my excerpt. AOL had a contract allowing them to censor their contractor’s work, did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service), and was still held immune from liability. The CDA basically grants publishers the ability to have their cake and eat it too, so you’d need to change the law.
- skrowl 7y ago
  I hope your views are never found to be 'extreme' and you're deplatformed due to it
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    It is one thing to be concerned about deplatforming--a concern I share--and another to argue against legal realities--as you've been doing. What one wants and what is are not always the same.
  - javagram 7y ago
    My statement was not about what I think should be the case, but about what is currently the state of the law in the USA. Regarding what views I may have that are “extreme”, I’m well aware of the growing threat poised by this to myself...
- radiator 7y ago
  ... did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service) ... What does this mean? I don't understand at all.
  - javagram 7y ago
    Did you ever use AOL? It was similar to a website today. There was a search feature, you could view content on it, and so on. They exercised editorial judgment and removed content. Nevertheless, they were found immune from liability for a piece of third party content on their service that they did not remove. Just follow the link and look up the various legal cases if you want to know more.
  - Qwertystop 7y ago
    They censored some things and not others, and were not held liable for those things which they did not censor.
Nasrudith 7y ago
The whole point of the law was to allow the websites an option between "total prevetted lockdown" and "spam and gross out filled anarchy because anything not forbidden by law is permitted". It may have been for prudish intentions but there is a reason that was the only section of the CDA to survive.
busterarm 7y ago
I'm perfectly happy with the legal option of Facebook being a publisher instead of a platform. That way if somebody publishes false information or doxxes me, I can sue the pants off of Facebook and I'll win. They are desperate for this _not_ to happen. It would literally put them out of business.

by skrowl 7y ago

javagram 7y ago

The law is specifically written for that case, as noted in my excerpt. AOL had a contract allowing them to censor their contractor’s work, did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service), and was still held immune from liability. The CDA basically grants publishers the ability to have their cake and eat it too, so you’d need to change the law.

skrowl 7y ago
I hope your views are never found to be 'extreme' and you're deplatformed due to it
- pwinnski 7y ago
  It is one thing to be concerned about deplatforming--a concern I share--and another to argue against legal realities--as you've been doing. What one wants and what is are not always the same.
- javagram 7y ago
  My statement was not about what I think should be the case, but about what is currently the state of the law in the USA. Regarding what views I may have that are “extreme”, I’m well aware of the growing threat poised by this to myself...
radiator 7y ago
... did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service) ... What does this mean? I don't understand at all.
- javagram 7y ago
  Did you ever use AOL? It was similar to a website today. There was a search feature, you could view content on it, and so on. They exercised editorial judgment and removed content. Nevertheless, they were found immune from liability for a piece of third party content on their service that they did not remove. Just follow the link and look up the various legal cases if you want to know more.
- Qwertystop 7y ago
  They censored some things and not others, and were not held liable for those things which they did not censor.

Nasrudith 7y ago

The whole point of the law was to allow the websites an option between "total prevetted lockdown" and "spam and gross out filled anarchy because anything not forbidden by law is permitted". It may have been for prudish intentions but there is a reason that was the only section of the CDA to survive.

busterarm 7y ago

I'm perfectly happy with the legal option of Facebook being a publisher instead of a platform. That way if somebody publishes false information or doxxes me, I can sue the pants off of Facebook and I'll win. They are desperate for this _not_ to happen. It would literally put them out of business.