5 ms·

If we are to trust Apple on the claim that they are a platform and not a publisher, removing for an editorial reason like this put their claim in doubt and I do

If we are to trust Apple on the claim that they are a platform and not a publisher, removing for an editorial reason like this put their claim in doubt and I don't think they have the leeway you describe here as a platform. If Apple is now a publisher with editorial control, why would anyone trust them as a middleman to their customer base? Seems risky.

Despegar 7y ago
What claim? Apple has not ever disclaimed that they have complete editorial control over what happens on their platform, in fact they've advertised that fact repeatedly over the years. Being "curated" has been a central part of the App Store selling proposition.
- asabjorn 7y ago
  They rely on Section 230 [1] protection, which only applies to platforms, to not be liable for what is published on their platform. If they have editorial control they are liable like newspapers are liable. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
IAmEveryone 7y ago
This platform/publisher meme has always been a misunderstanding of the law. I guess now it's even being shoved into situations that have absolutely nothing to do with it?
- asabjorn 7y ago
  How is that a misunderstanding of the requirements to be a platform to be protected from liability under section 230 [1]? [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
  - IAmEveryone 7y ago
    Section 230 explicitly says that making editorial judgements does not make you liable for the content you publish: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (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"

5 ms·

If we are to trust Apple on the claim that they are a platform and not a publisher, removing for an editorial reason like this put their claim in doubt and I do

by asabjorn 7y ago

Despegar 7y ago
What claim? Apple has not ever disclaimed that they have complete editorial control over what happens on their platform, in fact they've advertised that fact repeatedly over the years. Being "curated" has been a central part of the App Store selling proposition.
- asabjorn 7y ago
  They rely on Section 230 [1] protection, which only applies to platforms, to not be liable for what is published on their platform. If they have editorial control they are liable like newspapers are liable. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
IAmEveryone 7y ago
This platform/publisher meme has always been a misunderstanding of the law. I guess now it's even being shoved into situations that have absolutely nothing to do with it?
- asabjorn 7y ago
  How is that a misunderstanding of the requirements to be a platform to be protected from liability under section 230 [1]? [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
  - IAmEveryone 7y ago
    Section 230 explicitly says that making editorial judgements does not make you liable for the content you publish: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (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"