3 ms·

> Do they really need to make that explicit in the terms of service? I thought it was obvious that I didn't have the right to make Google/YouTube pay for hostin

> Do they really need to make that explicit in the terms of service? I thought it was obvious that I didn't have the right to make Google/YouTube pay for hosting and serving a video just because I created it. You would think most people understand this. However there is a political movement in America to force social networks to host people's vulgar or derogatory opinions in the name of the "first amendment," which technically never applied to privately funded social networks in the first place. Lots of people would never think of walking into a Target and posting illiterate political meme's on the wall. But that's almost exactly what you're doing by making Facebook and YouTube spread your hate.

belorn 7y ago
First amendment apply to the government and anything that functions equivalent to the government. Its that second part that court has made decisions going both way, and the question got mentioned as recently as this year when Trump twitter account got declared to function equivalent as any other official government forum. In that specific case the twitter account of the US president was deemed such, but the whole of twitter was explicitly not judged on. Beside that, a lot of people talk to media about first amendment they often then go to court raising anti-discrimination laws. Those laws are much more broader and can be applied to private funded companies. When it comes to international companies there is also free speech as defined by the EU and that one do not make a distinction between company and state in the same way as the first amendment. The distinction between free speech (US first amendment), free speech (EU human rights) and free speech (US anti-discrimination) are all fine legal technicallities, but limitation in one does not give private funded social networks free range to do whatever they want.
- zelon88 7y ago
  How do you figure? You agreed that your posts would be moderated when you signed up. Should Facebook be eternally available to host people's timeline? Who pays for that? Why should I innovate the next big thing if someone in a different country is going to hold me legally responsible to support it forever? And the ruling doesn't mean Twitter has to host Trump's Tweets forever or guarantee service. If he breaks their TOS they will ban him. They have a right too. What the ruling means is that the government has a responsibility to archive his Twitter posts and that he himself cannot restrict access to it, as president.

belorn 7y ago

First amendment apply to the government and anything that functions equivalent to the government. Its that second part that court has made decisions going both way, and the question got mentioned as recently as this year when Trump twitter account got declared to function equivalent as any other official government forum. In that specific case the twitter account of the US president was deemed such, but the whole of twitter was explicitly not judged on. Beside that, a lot of people talk to media about first amendment they often then go to court raising anti-discrimination laws. Those laws are much more broader and can be applied to private funded companies. When it comes to international companies there is also free speech as defined by the EU and that one do not make a distinction between company and state in the same way as the first amendment. The distinction between free speech (US first amendment), free speech (EU human rights) and free speech (US anti-discrimination) are all fine legal technicallities, but limitation in one does not give private funded social networks free range to do whatever they want.

zelon88 7y ago
How do you figure? You agreed that your posts would be moderated when you signed up. Should Facebook be eternally available to host people's timeline? Who pays for that? Why should I innovate the next big thing if someone in a different country is going to hold me legally responsible to support it forever? And the ruling doesn't mean Twitter has to host Trump's Tweets forever or guarantee service. If he breaks their TOS they will ban him. They have a right too. What the ruling means is that the government has a responsibility to archive his Twitter posts and that he himself cannot restrict access to it, as president.