3 ms·

Maybe the question is, how much content can you remove for what reasons until it becomes an endorsement of the remaining content. Removing a specific post for r

Maybe the question is, how much content can you remove for what reasons until it becomes an endorsement of the remaining content. Removing a specific post for reasons like violating site rules is different than removing hundreds of posts that express some common political opinion. How should that line be drawn? That's complicated, but that doesn't mean there's no good answer. Maybe the line should be form vs. content; removing a post because of strong language (if the site specifically does not allow it) is different from removing a post because of an expressed idea. There's also a clear difference between presenting something demonstrably false as fact and and questioning the reasoning by which such falsehoods are identified. Both might be expressions of conspiracy theory, but should be protected by a persons freedom to express their opinion, the other is a lie.

raesene9 6y ago
Under current rules, on most social media sites, things can be cause for removal without being demonstrably false. What you appear to be suggesting is that only demonstrably false or things like strong language apply. If you suggest that platforms cannot remove other content, a lot of actions from people like reddit to remove objectionable content are banned, similarly here. Content has been removed from HN for example for "not contributing to the discussion", that's a subjective opinion, but one I'd suggest that site owners are entitled to. Also when you start getting into very fine grained distinctions (for example have some of the things president trump has said been "demonstrably false" or not?) the chances of a law accurately capturing that requirement in such a way that a massive number of lawsuits are not started are (in my opinion) low. Opening the door to that kind of lawsuit would seem likely to destroy smaller, less well funded sites, whilst larger players could likely weather the storm.

raesene9 6y ago

Under current rules, on most social media sites, things can be cause for removal without being demonstrably false. What you appear to be suggesting is that only demonstrably false or things like strong language apply. If you suggest that platforms cannot remove other content, a lot of actions from people like reddit to remove objectionable content are banned, similarly here. Content has been removed from HN for example for "not contributing to the discussion", that's a subjective opinion, but one I'd suggest that site owners are entitled to. Also when you start getting into very fine grained distinctions (for example have some of the things president trump has said been "demonstrably false" or not?) the chances of a law accurately capturing that requirement in such a way that a massive number of lawsuits are not started are (in my opinion) low. Opening the door to that kind of lawsuit would seem likely to destroy smaller, less well funded sites, whilst larger players could likely weather the storm.