3 ms·
So long as certain content (that is not restricted by external forces, i.e. the law) is prohibited from the platform, I fail to see why they should be consider
by v7x 7y ago
So long as certain content (that is not restricted by external forces, i.e. the law) is prohibited from the platform, I fail to see why they should be considered anything other than a publisher. If the platform can only be used for content they approve of, they can't be defined as anything else.
- andrewflnr 7y agoI think the "default allow" of a social media platform is materially different from the "default deny" of a typical publisher. That's kind of tricky to build a sharp distinction on, but it's where I would start.
- snisarenko 7y agoI think the issue is more nuanced than you think. I understand where you are coming from. BUT By your own logic, hackernews should be treated as a publisher, and not a platform. Hackenews is a forum where the moderators restrict discussion to specific topics to keep discussion high quality. But I consider them a platform and not a publisher. Or for example a car discussion forum, bans anyone who wants to discuss airplanes. Again, I would still consider them a platform and not a publisher.