4 ms·

As another poster notes, Facebook's speech codes are far more restrictive than those afforded by the First Amendment. Of course, as a private entity Facebook is

by jdkee 7y ago

As another poster notes, Facebook's speech codes are far more restrictive than those afforded by the First Amendment. Of course, as a private entity Facebook is not constrained by the 1A. This is simply pandering by the CEO to placate possible investigations by a conservative administration.

virmundi 7y ago
While a private company, it gains major legal protections as a platform. If the chooses speech, they are a publisher, which opens them up to legal actions. They can’t have it both ways. Neither can people saying they are a private company and therefore free of the first amendment.
- akersten 7y ago
  No, stop spreading this misinformation. A "platform" can moderate all they like (section 230), and they can have it both ways. They can even moderate opinions they don't like. There is nothing wrong with that, and it's how it should work. You are free to ban people for violating your terms of use, you are free to ban them for expressing an opinion you don't agree with, you are afforded this freedom by the First Amendment, because the government may make no law compelling you to speak on behalf of someone else. The "publisher or platform, choose one" line is a lie brandished by those who are trying to instate The Fairness Doctrine 2.0, where private businesses are somehow compelled to be politically neutral in their moderation, which by the way is impossible to define. Remember that the original Fairness Doctrine (which tried to make TV news politically neutral) was found unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Private company, their website, their rules. If you don't like it, make your own platform - there's nothing stopping you. (Sidebar, this is in contrast to an ISP where there are often regulations and local laws preventing competition, and enforced neutrality makes sense in that space as a consequence of a government-granted monopoly. That's not how the current FCC saw it when ruling on Net Neutrality, and I think they're wrong - but I'm getting off-topic).
  - stevenicr 7y ago
    I think there is some truth to what the P (or gp?) poster is saying, and you mention 230 - which is exactly the part I think he/she was referring to.. "Section 230 says that "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... afaik, and simplified, if you have users post words and such to the web via your service, you are not on the hook legally as much if it was you yourself publishing content on your own closed service for example. I have had expensive counsel suggest that not-moderating content may be the best choice in order to not lose these protections in some cases. It took me a bit to realize there is a difference between moderating all content before it's published and moderating after the fact (like takedown requests) I don't agree with the last part of the gp's post, but I also don't think it's spreading misinformation, it's just more complicated now (and with the sesta / fosta adding exemptions to the exemptions, it's even more complex ) I do agree with you that "A "platform" can moderate all they like" and they can have it both ways in some regards... like it's okay to let people upload videos if you take them down when requested by rights holders... you would not be losing all 230 protection, but if you had a moderator manually approve each item before it was published - that may trigger some other liabilities than you'd have otherwise.. the choose one line may be used by some in the way you mention, and I appreciate you adding that thought to the discussion. I believe the line can also be used and applied to many other situations in which it may be the way it should work, or in some cases maybe not - and other's have tried to have it 'both ways' such as cloudflare. Where these issues ultimately lead seem to be in a state of flux, and I think many have been assuming freedoms have been defined and yet they are being chipped away from several fronts / angles. I see more grey areas around this these days then there once was.
    - akersten 7y ago
      Thanks for the reply. You're right to bring up trickier situations like Cloudflare where it's not a government-granted monopoly, but a large 'infrastructure' provider. I deliberately omitted those from my post since it's more contentious territory, even though I still draw the hard-line at "no special government grant to monopolize a market" -> "no requirement to be neutral". A few other thoughts: >> afaik, and simplified, if you have users post words and such to the web via your service, you are not on the hook legally as much if it was you yourself publishing content on your own closed service for example. Yep, that's my interpretation of Section 230 as well. >> I have had expensive counsel suggest that not-moderating content may be the best choice in order to not lose these protections in some cases. It astounds me that counsel would suggest that. Is there any case law to support this? That idea is the "misinformation" I'm specifically referring to. People are saying it without providing any support. As far as I can tell, Section 230 does not say this, and there is no judicial precedent to conclude it. At least insofar as systems where content is not individually approved before becoming available. >> it's just more complicated now (and with the sesta / fosta adding exemptions to the exemptions, it's even more complex ) For what it's worth, I believe SESTA/FOSTA to be unconstitutional, and eagarly await someone brave enough to challenge them. So I don't think those laws existing necessarily imply that this is any more nuanced a problem than before.
lacker 7y ago
This is simply pandering by the CEO to placate possible investigations by a conservative administration. That doesn't really make sense, since the current issue at stake is some pro-Trump ads, which Facebook allowed and CNN did not. This speech is more like Zuckerberg defending this action as neutral, while the NYT and Elizabeth Warren are attacking it as unfairly supporting Trump.
- akersten 7y ago
  It makes perfect sense in the broader context that the current administration has been bloviating about "looking into" Facebook and other tech giants to investigate alleged anti-conservative bias. Keeping the video up and defending yourself as a neutral entity is precisely what I would expect Facebook to do if they wanted to keep the DOJ at bay. Not because they're breaking any laws by having a bias, but that they're currently staring down the barrel of anti-trust investigation. If they wanted to win some points with the current administration, this is exactly how they'd do it.

by jdkee 7y ago

virmundi 7y ago

While a private company, it gains major legal protections as a platform. If the chooses speech, they are a publisher, which opens them up to legal actions. They can’t have it both ways. Neither can people saying they are a private company and therefore free of the first amendment.

akersten 7y ago
No, stop spreading this misinformation. A "platform" can moderate all they like (section 230), and they can have it both ways. They can even moderate opinions they don't like. There is nothing wrong with that, and it's how it should work. You are free to ban people for violating your terms of use, you are free to ban them for expressing an opinion you don't agree with, you are afforded this freedom by the First Amendment, because the government may make no law compelling you to speak on behalf of someone else. The "publisher or platform, choose one" line is a lie brandished by those who are trying to instate The Fairness Doctrine 2.0, where private businesses are somehow compelled to be politically neutral in their moderation, which by the way is impossible to define. Remember that the original Fairness Doctrine (which tried to make TV news politically neutral) was found unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Private company, their website, their rules. If you don't like it, make your own platform - there's nothing stopping you. (Sidebar, this is in contrast to an ISP where there are often regulations and local laws preventing competition, and enforced neutrality makes sense in that space as a consequence of a government-granted monopoly. That's not how the current FCC saw it when ruling on Net Neutrality, and I think they're wrong - but I'm getting off-topic).
- stevenicr 7y ago
  I think there is some truth to what the P (or gp?) poster is saying, and you mention 230 - which is exactly the part I think he/she was referring to.. "Section 230 says that "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... afaik, and simplified, if you have users post words and such to the web via your service, you are not on the hook legally as much if it was you yourself publishing content on your own closed service for example. I have had expensive counsel suggest that not-moderating content may be the best choice in order to not lose these protections in some cases. It took me a bit to realize there is a difference between moderating all content before it's published and moderating after the fact (like takedown requests) I don't agree with the last part of the gp's post, but I also don't think it's spreading misinformation, it's just more complicated now (and with the sesta / fosta adding exemptions to the exemptions, it's even more complex ) I do agree with you that "A "platform" can moderate all they like" and they can have it both ways in some regards... like it's okay to let people upload videos if you take them down when requested by rights holders... you would not be losing all 230 protection, but if you had a moderator manually approve each item before it was published - that may trigger some other liabilities than you'd have otherwise.. the choose one line may be used by some in the way you mention, and I appreciate you adding that thought to the discussion. I believe the line can also be used and applied to many other situations in which it may be the way it should work, or in some cases maybe not - and other's have tried to have it 'both ways' such as cloudflare. Where these issues ultimately lead seem to be in a state of flux, and I think many have been assuming freedoms have been defined and yet they are being chipped away from several fronts / angles. I see more grey areas around this these days then there once was.
  - akersten 7y ago
    Thanks for the reply. You're right to bring up trickier situations like Cloudflare where it's not a government-granted monopoly, but a large 'infrastructure' provider. I deliberately omitted those from my post since it's more contentious territory, even though I still draw the hard-line at "no special government grant to monopolize a market" -> "no requirement to be neutral". A few other thoughts: >> afaik, and simplified, if you have users post words and such to the web via your service, you are not on the hook legally as much if it was you yourself publishing content on your own closed service for example. Yep, that's my interpretation of Section 230 as well. >> I have had expensive counsel suggest that not-moderating content may be the best choice in order to not lose these protections in some cases. It astounds me that counsel would suggest that. Is there any case law to support this? That idea is the "misinformation" I'm specifically referring to. People are saying it without providing any support. As far as I can tell, Section 230 does not say this, and there is no judicial precedent to conclude it. At least insofar as systems where content is not individually approved before becoming available. >> it's just more complicated now (and with the sesta / fosta adding exemptions to the exemptions, it's even more complex ) For what it's worth, I believe SESTA/FOSTA to be unconstitutional, and eagarly await someone brave enough to challenge them. So I don't think those laws existing necessarily imply that this is any more nuanced a problem than before.

lacker 7y ago

This is simply pandering by the CEO to placate possible investigations by a conservative administration. That doesn't really make sense, since the current issue at stake is some pro-Trump ads, which Facebook allowed and CNN did not. This speech is more like Zuckerberg defending this action as neutral, while the NYT and Elizabeth Warren are attacking it as unfairly supporting Trump.

akersten 7y ago
It makes perfect sense in the broader context that the current administration has been bloviating about "looking into" Facebook and other tech giants to investigate alleged anti-conservative bias. Keeping the video up and defending yourself as a neutral entity is precisely what I would expect Facebook to do if they wanted to keep the DOJ at bay. Not because they're breaking any laws by having a bias, but that they're currently staring down the barrel of anti-trust investigation. If they wanted to win some points with the current administration, this is exactly how they'd do it.