4 ms·

Welcome to the Publisher vs Platform debate. The issue is in some cases “they” (FANNG, Reddit, Twitter, etc) want to be platforms like Facebook saying ads aren

Welcome to the Publisher vs Platform debate. The issue is in some cases “they” (FANNG, Reddit, Twitter, etc) want to be platforms like Facebook saying ads aren’t their responsibility, and in some cases are acting as publishers by censoring otherwise legal content they do not like or agree with. There are memes that will get you instantly suspended from Facebook, while you and Facebook argue no one could possibly monitor content! It shouldn’t be that the giants get to be both. Legally they are provided protections against content on their system - but historically this only applies to platforms where the content is entirely unfiltered. Think if your telco cut the call when you said the words “Jeffery Epstein didn’t kill himself” as a fictitious example, they shouldn’t get liability protection for things people say if they’re going to curate the content like that.

computerex 7y ago
Right, there is definitely a double standard. Facebook wants its cake and wants to eat it too. Look how hard they are trying to get into China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Facebook#China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Facebook#China They don't care about free speech or cooperating with one of the biggest enemy of Free Speech in the world (China) when there is potential revenue to be made.
- brycesbeard 7y ago
  Wait, what? The link you shared didn’t sound like Facebook is even trying to get into China. And the one reference to them building something with the Chinese govt is a link to a login paywall.
  - computerex 7y ago
    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38073949 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38073949 https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/22/13720092/facebook-china-censorship-tool https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/22/13720092/facebook-china-... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censo... https://time.com/4581361/facebook-china-censorship-news-mark-zuckerberg/ https://time.com/4581361/facebook-china-censorship-news-mark... https://www.forbes.com/sites/xiangwang/2016/11/24/doing-business-the-chinese-way-facebook-develops-a-censorship-tool/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/xiangwang/2016/11/24/doing-busi...
    - brycesbeard 7y ago
      These links are all from 2016 and reference the same leak from FB. Said leaks stressed that these ideas may never be implemented here we are, 3 years later. It sounds to me like FB discusses the idea and never implemented it. I’m not sure we can fault a company for exploring contingency plans with China...
      - computerex 7y ago
        So what if they are from 3 years ago, and how would you know if these ideas were or aren't being implemented as we speak? My whole point was that FB on one hand claims that it doesn't want to remove provably false content because it is a publisher, but on the other hand is willing to cater to the Chinese government's request for censorship. Seems like FB is merely trying to maximize revenue no matter what the cost.
bearcobra 7y ago
Section 230 wasn't intended to apply to spaces where content was completely unfiltered. It was meant to give services like AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe the ability to to moderate content without inherently becoming liable for everything that was posted to their services. Ron Wyden is still in congress and has talked about this purpose, as a response to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Forcing sites to have a completely laissez-faire approach to user generated content seems to avoid liability for that user content seems like something that would destroy the internet. Like why would YC take on that risk to help us maintain a space free of spam or threats of violence?
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  >seems like something that would destroy the internet. I too remember "the destroyed" internet of yesteryear. We're in a much better place now that 5 companies control your opinion and your access to counter opinions. >Like why would YC take on that risk to help us maintain a space free of spam or threats of violence? No. We're talking about legal things that the PUBLISHER just doesn't like. Illegal things are always on the table for moderation. Don't try and make the argument about spam. You know very well that the issue here is a room of "content curators" artificially removing "trending" things because of political ideology, or government requested censorship, or just whoever bought the most ads that month.

computerex 7y ago

Right, there is definitely a double standard. Facebook wants its cake and wants to eat it too. Look how hard they are trying to get into China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Facebook#China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Facebook#China They don't care about free speech or cooperating with one of the biggest enemy of Free Speech in the world (China) when there is potential revenue to be made.

brycesbeard 7y ago
Wait, what? The link you shared didn’t sound like Facebook is even trying to get into China. And the one reference to them building something with the Chinese govt is a link to a login paywall.
- computerex 7y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38073949 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38073949 https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/22/13720092/facebook-china-censorship-tool https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/22/13720092/facebook-china-... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censo... https://time.com/4581361/facebook-china-censorship-news-mark-zuckerberg/ https://time.com/4581361/facebook-china-censorship-news-mark... https://www.forbes.com/sites/xiangwang/2016/11/24/doing-business-the-chinese-way-facebook-develops-a-censorship-tool/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/xiangwang/2016/11/24/doing-busi...
  - brycesbeard 7y ago
    These links are all from 2016 and reference the same leak from FB. Said leaks stressed that these ideas may never be implemented here we are, 3 years later. It sounds to me like FB discusses the idea and never implemented it. I’m not sure we can fault a company for exploring contingency plans with China...
    - computerex 7y ago
      So what if they are from 3 years ago, and how would you know if these ideas were or aren't being implemented as we speak? My whole point was that FB on one hand claims that it doesn't want to remove provably false content because it is a publisher, but on the other hand is willing to cater to the Chinese government's request for censorship. Seems like FB is merely trying to maximize revenue no matter what the cost.

bearcobra 7y ago

Section 230 wasn't intended to apply to spaces where content was completely unfiltered. It was meant to give services like AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe the ability to to moderate content without inherently becoming liable for everything that was posted to their services. Ron Wyden is still in congress and has talked about this purpose, as a response to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Forcing sites to have a completely laissez-faire approach to user generated content seems to avoid liability for that user content seems like something that would destroy the internet. Like why would YC take on that risk to help us maintain a space free of spam or threats of violence?

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>seems like something that would destroy the internet. I too remember "the destroyed" internet of yesteryear. We're in a much better place now that 5 companies control your opinion and your access to counter opinions. >Like why would YC take on that risk to help us maintain a space free of spam or threats of violence? No. We're talking about legal things that the PUBLISHER just doesn't like. Illegal things are always on the table for moderation. Don't try and make the argument about spam. You know very well that the issue here is a room of "content curators" artificially removing "trending" things because of political ideology, or government requested censorship, or just whoever bought the most ads that month.