4 ms·

Both Murdoch and Hearst ran publishing entities, whereas Google and other social media sites claim to be neutral platforms. This distinction is important becaus

Both Murdoch and Hearst ran publishing entities, whereas Google and other social media sites claim to be neutral platforms. This distinction is important because certain protections given to neutral platforms don’t necessarily apply to publishers. (For instance, Reddit can’t be held accountable for libel posted on their site by someone else since they’re just a platform. )

root_axis 7y ago
This is an oft-repeated falsehood. There is no such distinction between platforms and publishers as far as online websites go. The law is very explicit about this, google section 230.
- btilly 7y ago
  Please clarify what part of it you consider to be a falsehood. Google returned results such as https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-section-230-of-the-communication-decency-act-cda/ https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-sectio... and https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 which suggest that there is a difference. Very specifically, if a site has applied editorial discretion like a publisher does, it is then liable for what is said. If it just reposts content provided by others, it has a safe harbor. By my lay reading, automated filtering intended to support a specific point of view would seem to be a grey area.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    Specifically this statement: > Google and other social media sites claim to be neutral platforms. This distinction is important because certain protections given to neutral platforms don’t necessarily apply to publishers. It is false. There is no such "distinction" in terms of protections applied to online platforms. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Scroll down to section C. 1. 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. 2. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— 2.a any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or 2.b any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] The law makes no stipulations or caveats regarding supposed "neutrality" of the platform.
  - magicalist 7y ago
    > which suggest that there is a difference you should keep reading: https://ilt.eff.org/Defamation__CDA_Cases.html#Exercise_of_Editorial_Functions https://ilt.eff.org/Defamation__CDA_Cases.html#Exercise_of_E...

root_axis 7y ago

This is an oft-repeated falsehood. There is no such distinction between platforms and publishers as far as online websites go. The law is very explicit about this, google section 230.

btilly 7y ago
Please clarify what part of it you consider to be a falsehood. Google returned results such as https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-section-230-of-the-communication-decency-act-cda/ https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-sectio... and https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 which suggest that there is a difference. Very specifically, if a site has applied editorial discretion like a publisher does, it is then liable for what is said. If it just reposts content provided by others, it has a safe harbor. By my lay reading, automated filtering intended to support a specific point of view would seem to be a grey area.
- root_axis 7y ago
  Specifically this statement: > Google and other social media sites claim to be neutral platforms. This distinction is important because certain protections given to neutral platforms don’t necessarily apply to publishers. It is false. There is no such "distinction" in terms of protections applied to online platforms. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Scroll down to section C. 1. 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. 2. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— 2.a any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or 2.b any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] The law makes no stipulations or caveats regarding supposed "neutrality" of the platform.
- magicalist 7y ago
  > which suggest that there is a difference you should keep reading: https://ilt.eff.org/Defamation__CDA_Cases.html#Exercise_of_Editorial_Functions https://ilt.eff.org/Defamation__CDA_Cases.html#Exercise_of_E...