4 ms·
That's a really interesting suggestion I haven't seen before. It makes sense from a completely non legal perspective. If you're halfway between a platform and a
by zpeti 6y ago
That's a really interesting suggestion I haven't seen before. It makes sense from a completely non legal perspective. If you're halfway between a platform and a publisher, as I believe all these platforms are, then a could compromise on how to solve this massive issue could be that modified, curated, fact checked content (by CNN not an independent fact checker) is what they are responsible for in terms of being a publisher.
- dTal 6y agoWith power comes responsibility. If you have the ability to censor/moderate/otherwise modify content, but choose not to do so, then you are tacitly responsible for that content. You can see the problem if Twitter allows politician A to accuse politician B of eating babies, but getting all high and mighty about politician B doing the same to A.
- zpeti 6y agoThat's not how the law works. If you don't touch it, even if you have the ability to do it, you remain a PLATFORM not a PUBLISHER. Any platform has the ability to modify anything on it. Does that make them tacitly responsible for all the content on it? No, that is just silly, and that's the way the law looks at it too.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y agoI think what they meant was not the theoretical ability to modify, but to actually have the systems in place to actually do so, as twitter clearly does.