13 ms·

It really seems like this article is a bit off on the reasoning they ascribe to people. The biggest objections I have heard is that Facebook / YouTube / Twitte

It really seems like this article is a bit off on the reasoning they ascribe to people. The biggest objections I have heard is that Facebook / YouTube / Twitter should now be classed as "publishers" and not "providers" because of the perceived bias in their removal of individuals and content.

throwaway_tech 7y ago
That is a clever legal argument. Of course to distinguish a traditional newspaper or publication from social media posts are the editorializing exercised by the tech companies occurs after publication/posting; whereas, traditional media exercises their editorial powers prior to publication. In practice, say I set up an anonymous social media account and publish false/defamatory statements about myself, then I sue the tech company and john doe (as the poster), what exactly can/could the tech company do to have prevented liability? Seemly they would have to somehow change their systems so posts are reviewed by editors prior to publication to minimize legal risk and potential liability.
- protomyth 7y ago
  That is the type of situation that 230 was meant to stop. It would be impossible to be Twitter, etc. without the protection of 230 and that is why it was created. It carries over from not being able to sue the telephone or telegraph company because someone sent something defamatory about you over their system. The argument is that the services desire to keep the protections of 230 but act like publishers that are not afforded the same protections.
  - visarga 7y ago
    > It carries over from not being able to sue the telephone or telegraph company On the other hand, phone calls are not persistent and one to one, not one to anyone.
    - clmckinley 7y ago
      And you generally know the person who is on both ends. This leads to a sense of history and consequence which is most commonly not available on the internet.
      - BadThink6655321 7y ago
        Not anymore. My wife and I now get more spam calls than real calls.
    - crooked-v 7y ago
      > not one to anyone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  It isn't a legal arguement but a propaganda push. There is no publisher/platform duality. The concept is pure unadultered bullshit. There is no legal precedent for that concept but a later invention. This is not pointed out nearly enough.
cmac2992 7y ago
I hear that argument a lot as well. It's a very strange argument because publishers don't have a legal requirement to be "unbiased".
- jaywalk 7y ago
  It's not that publishers have to be unbiased, it's that publishers are legally responsible for what is published.
  - LegitShady 7y ago
    Exactly. They act as publishers but do the have any liability like publishers in other areas have. They shouldn't have it both ways.
    - dageshi 7y ago
      Pretty much every forum, reddit and social media network goes away including HN in that case, the only way any of it works is because they have it both ways.
      - LegitShady 7y ago
        Alternately there would be open forums and corporate forums and they would be very different. But tech companies wouldn't own speech and would be liable since they can police their platforms as they demonstrate.
    - esoterica 7y ago
      Do you also object to HN moderation? Why should dang be allowed to ban people but not twitter? Do you think dang should accept legal liability for everything people post on HN?
      - gsfiydaagihdag 7y ago
        It's good to ask those questions, of course small companies are affected too. But, for example, if Dang selectively removed posts such that the remaining posts slandered someone in a way that none of the individual posters intended, I believe Dang would be the only one in the chain liable for the resulting slander, not the posters. But under current law, Dang has protection under 230, so no one could get charged for the resulting slander That's an extreme hypothetical case of course.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
franczesko 7y ago
+ if they are making money out of the published content. The reasoning, that they fall under "Publisher" category is logical and valid.
- nybble41 7y ago
  So sites would not incur liability unless they are directly selling access to the published content? I could agree with that, assuming there were any merit to the concept of "illegal content" in the first place. Which, of course, would run directly counter to the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech, and proportionality.

throwaway_tech 7y ago

That is a clever legal argument. Of course to distinguish a traditional newspaper or publication from social media posts are the editorializing exercised by the tech companies occurs after publication/posting; whereas, traditional media exercises their editorial powers prior to publication. In practice, say I set up an anonymous social media account and publish false/defamatory statements about myself, then I sue the tech company and john doe (as the poster), what exactly can/could the tech company do to have prevented liability? Seemly they would have to somehow change their systems so posts are reviewed by editors prior to publication to minimize legal risk and potential liability.

protomyth 7y ago
That is the type of situation that 230 was meant to stop. It would be impossible to be Twitter, etc. without the protection of 230 and that is why it was created. It carries over from not being able to sue the telephone or telegraph company because someone sent something defamatory about you over their system. The argument is that the services desire to keep the protections of 230 but act like publishers that are not afforded the same protections.
- visarga 7y ago
  > It carries over from not being able to sue the telephone or telegraph company On the other hand, phone calls are not persistent and one to one, not one to anyone.
  - clmckinley 7y ago
    And you generally know the person who is on both ends. This leads to a sense of history and consequence which is most commonly not available on the internet.
    - BadThink6655321 7y ago
      Not anymore. My wife and I now get more spam calls than real calls.
  - crooked-v 7y ago
    > not one to anyone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)
Nasrudith 7y ago
It isn't a legal arguement but a propaganda push. There is no publisher/platform duality. The concept is pure unadultered bullshit. There is no legal precedent for that concept but a later invention. This is not pointed out nearly enough.

cmac2992 7y ago

I hear that argument a lot as well. It's a very strange argument because publishers don't have a legal requirement to be "unbiased".

jaywalk 7y ago
It's not that publishers have to be unbiased, it's that publishers are legally responsible for what is published.
- LegitShady 7y ago
  Exactly. They act as publishers but do the have any liability like publishers in other areas have. They shouldn't have it both ways.
  - dageshi 7y ago
    Pretty much every forum, reddit and social media network goes away including HN in that case, the only way any of it works is because they have it both ways.
    - LegitShady 7y ago
      Alternately there would be open forums and corporate forums and they would be very different. But tech companies wouldn't own speech and would be liable since they can police their platforms as they demonstrate.
  - esoterica 7y ago
    Do you also object to HN moderation? Why should dang be allowed to ban people but not twitter? Do you think dang should accept legal liability for everything people post on HN?
    - gsfiydaagihdag 7y ago
      It's good to ask those questions, of course small companies are affected too. But, for example, if Dang selectively removed posts such that the remaining posts slandered someone in a way that none of the individual posters intended, I believe Dang would be the only one in the chain liable for the resulting slander, not the posters. But under current law, Dang has protection under 230, so no one could get charged for the resulting slander That's an extreme hypothetical case of course.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

franczesko 7y ago

+ if they are making money out of the published content. The reasoning, that they fall under "Publisher" category is logical and valid.

nybble41 7y ago
So sites would not incur liability unless they are directly selling access to the published content? I could agree with that, assuming there were any merit to the concept of "illegal content" in the first place. Which, of course, would run directly counter to the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech, and proportionality.