3 ms·

I think Trump should use the White House homepage for his communications. And what he writes on Twitter and Facebook, those platforms should at least be as liab

by mongol 6y ago

I think Trump should use the White House homepage for his communications. And what he writes on Twitter and Facebook, those platforms should at least be as liable for as if Trump wrote the same thing in an opinion piece in a newspaper. I think AWS and Azure are true "platforms" but Facebook and Twitter are social media. They are more similiar to other media than to technical platforms. I think the buck should end with Zuckerberg for everything expressed on his site. If this was the case, it might very well be that social media as we know it today would no longer be viable. It might very well be better however. I long for the time the blogosphere was were people expressed themselves online. It was more mature, slower, and more thoughtful.

bargl 6y ago
Isn't this what section 230 prevents? It protects Facebook and Twitter from this specifically. It's also what Trump was pushing back on.
- kgin 6y ago
  What's confusing to me is that killing 230 would make social media liable for the content published by its users. It seems like it would require them to control and filter content more, not less.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
    They aren't wanting to kill 230, they want to take it away from companies who choose to alter users' posts. Their argument is if you start censoring and editing your users you are abusing the protections given to you by 230 and you are no longer eligible and you must vet EVERY post, not just the ones you selected. Other companies who do not edit/censor their users selectively continue to have protections from 230. Not picking a side btw, just trying to clarify.
- mongol 6y ago
  I don't know the details of that since I don't live in the US. But I googled and read this > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider I think there is a distinction where this should apply and when not, and that is when the service acts "editorial" and when not. I see editorial as making choices what the user sees and not. I think all social media makes such choices today. They "recommend" you things, and thus I think they are editorial. Compare this with a static blog on AWS S3. All content comes from the writer. Amazon does not making any editorial calls at all. I think there is a distinction to make here.

by mongol 6y ago

bargl 6y ago

Isn't this what section 230 prevents? It protects Facebook and Twitter from this specifically. It's also what Trump was pushing back on.

kgin 6y ago
What's confusing to me is that killing 230 would make social media liable for the content published by its users. It seems like it would require them to control and filter content more, not less.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
  They aren't wanting to kill 230, they want to take it away from companies who choose to alter users' posts. Their argument is if you start censoring and editing your users you are abusing the protections given to you by 230 and you are no longer eligible and you must vet EVERY post, not just the ones you selected. Other companies who do not edit/censor their users selectively continue to have protections from 230. Not picking a side btw, just trying to clarify.
mongol 6y ago
I don't know the details of that since I don't live in the US. But I googled and read this > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider I think there is a distinction where this should apply and when not, and that is when the service acts "editorial" and when not. I see editorial as making choices what the user sees and not. I think all social media makes such choices today. They "recommend" you things, and thus I think they are editorial. Compare this with a static blog on AWS S3. All content comes from the writer. Amazon does not making any editorial calls at all. I think there is a distinction to make here.