4 ms·

Yet HN are, as I understand it, responsible for dang and sctb. They regularly moderate away the shite - which preserves one of the less polluted spots on the ne

Yet HN are, as I understand it, responsible for dang and sctb. They regularly moderate away the shite - which preserves one of the less polluted spots on the net. How do you square that circle? Surely you should object to what HN does - in fact why would a believer in no censorship even have an account here if HN are censoring (moderating and limiting) what everyone is able to say?

buboard 7y ago
Yeap, having paid moderators would classify you as a publisher - you 're essentially a newspaper publishing op-eds. HN would be a publisher and i don't find that wrong. However, HN could instead be subreddit in reddit's platform, with HN (or preferably an unrelated external entity) paying the moderators.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Now consider the world wider than the USA. Imagine I am in the UK (I am), who have overly strong libel and defamation law. Other countries can too. I don't agree the law's balance is right, but that's a different discussion. Were HN and FB a publisher, and had a UK office (and similarly in other countries with strong laws in this area) they would be liable as well as the individual posters. Those laws are why when things like Snowden and Cambridge Analytica broke they were published both sides of the Atlantic. You've now created a problem potentially far bigger than the one you fixed.
  - buboard 7y ago
    That is already the case though, isnt it? You can say things in reddit that would get you in trouble in a UK-based forum. I believe the distinction between publisher and platform is US thing. FB And HN are subject to US law where they 're based.It's up to the UK to block access to them if they think they 're illegal - Or preferably to fix libel laws.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      IANAL but as I understand it, the UK case at the moment is it might get me into trouble if they can pin me down, but not the discussion forum itself. There might be a legal request to reveal my identity, but purely to pin me down. As a publisher, the forum itself would be jointly and severally liable. If Fred Smith writes a piece in The Times that libels me, I sue the newspaper, not Fred Smith. FB and the other globals are subject to the laws of every place they operate. e.g. See all the US companies causing controversy changing their policies within China.
      - buboard 7y ago
        But what if (UK citizen) fred smith writes a piece in the new york times? I don't think you can sue the NYtimes, or that NYtimes will care - I bet they receive a ton of legal complaints from foreign countries every year most of which are readily dismissable by US law.
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Now I would need to consult a lawyer. I don't know US law on libel and defamation. The fact that stories like CA and Snowden have been jointly published in the US, rather than say Canada or France makes me suspect that chances of a successful suit are low in the US. That's probably the point. :)
- iron0013 7y ago
  There is no legal distinction between a 'platform' and a 'publisher' that compels a business to conduct its activity in any particular way. That is a falsehood that has somehow wormed its way into the general discourse.

buboard 7y ago

Yeap, having paid moderators would classify you as a publisher - you 're essentially a newspaper publishing op-eds. HN would be a publisher and i don't find that wrong. However, HN could instead be subreddit in reddit's platform, with HN (or preferably an unrelated external entity) paying the moderators.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Now consider the world wider than the USA. Imagine I am in the UK (I am), who have overly strong libel and defamation law. Other countries can too. I don't agree the law's balance is right, but that's a different discussion. Were HN and FB a publisher, and had a UK office (and similarly in other countries with strong laws in this area) they would be liable as well as the individual posters. Those laws are why when things like Snowden and Cambridge Analytica broke they were published both sides of the Atlantic. You've now created a problem potentially far bigger than the one you fixed.
- buboard 7y ago
  That is already the case though, isnt it? You can say things in reddit that would get you in trouble in a UK-based forum. I believe the distinction between publisher and platform is US thing. FB And HN are subject to US law where they 're based.It's up to the UK to block access to them if they think they 're illegal - Or preferably to fix libel laws.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    IANAL but as I understand it, the UK case at the moment is it might get me into trouble if they can pin me down, but not the discussion forum itself. There might be a legal request to reveal my identity, but purely to pin me down. As a publisher, the forum itself would be jointly and severally liable. If Fred Smith writes a piece in The Times that libels me, I sue the newspaper, not Fred Smith. FB and the other globals are subject to the laws of every place they operate. e.g. See all the US companies causing controversy changing their policies within China.
    - buboard 7y ago
      But what if (UK citizen) fred smith writes a piece in the new york times? I don't think you can sue the NYtimes, or that NYtimes will care - I bet they receive a ton of legal complaints from foreign countries every year most of which are readily dismissable by US law.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Now I would need to consult a lawyer. I don't know US law on libel and defamation. The fact that stories like CA and Snowden have been jointly published in the US, rather than say Canada or France makes me suspect that chances of a successful suit are low in the US. That's probably the point. :)
iron0013 7y ago
There is no legal distinction between a 'platform' and a 'publisher' that compels a business to conduct its activity in any particular way. That is a falsehood that has somehow wormed its way into the general discourse.