2 ms·
maybe I didn't express this clearly, but the scale of the platform (in users, and possibly also revenue) should be taken into account. a forum the size of HN wi
by leetcrew 6y ago
maybe I didn't express this clearly, but the scale of the platform (in users, and possibly also revenue) should be taken into account. a forum the size of HN with only a couple moderators should have most or all of the current safe harbor protections. but if a platform the size of facebook wants to pick and choose what kind of content is allowed, it should face some liability for whatever it allows to stay up. maybe not the same as if I post something libelous on my own personal website, but some fraction of that, proportional to the degree of moderation.
the point is not to discourage moderation entirely, but to make it a bit more costly/risky so that the influence of the biggest players is checked somewhat.
- aspenmayer 6y agoIt sets up a two-tired internet: one tier for sites with third party content, with rules and compliance and failure modes and enforcement; and one tier for sites which don’t allow third party content. It seems designed to setup a regime or structure or legal framework to force platforms to allow third party content which would otherwise violate the platforms’ terms of service or other guidelines, or force a legal standoff with the government. It removes control of the site from site operators. This would result it a system ripe for selective enforcement. Not a fan. Not a fan of how sites currently selectively enforce their terms of service either, whether directly through employees or hired contractors, or indirectly via community moderators. Selective enforcement is the common thread running through this topic on all its sides: the questionable or controversial content and its creators; the platforms and hosts; and the government and its representatives, eager to also have a seat at the selective enforcement table.