3 ms·
It's not that publishers have to be unbiased, it's that publishers are legally responsible for what is published.
by 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 agoExactly. 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 agoPretty 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 agoAlternately 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 agoDo 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 agoIt'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.
- LegitShady 7y agoI only object that they get both the rights of platform and publisher. they are free to moderate however they wish but once they do they should be liable for the content of their platform. No other publishers are not held liable.