4 ms·

Are you implying that if I stand up a small public forum or message board for some niche interest using my own assets that I am unable to boot people off it or

Are you implying that if I stand up a small public forum or message board for some niche interest using my own assets that I am unable to boot people off it or moderate in any way without being deemed a publisher and being liable for content?

Thorentis 6y ago
I think it is about scale. If you stand up a public forum and you have 100 users, do your moderation choices actually sway a large percentage of public opinion? Consider instead a social media platform with a billion users and its moderation choices. It is time for us to use some common sense and not just dissolve everything down to that simplistic binary terms. Having a forum doesn't make you a publisher. Moderation isn't always bad. There are many other nuances like reach, scale, trust, etc. For instance, there is a huge difference between me posting disinformation of my private blog, and me publishing disinformation is a newspaper read by hundreds of thousands daily. My responsibility and influence over the public increases with the reach I have. We need to think the same way about social media.
- darekkay 6y ago
  > I think it is about scale. If you stand up a public forum and you have 100 users, do your moderation choices actually sway a large percentage of public opinion? Consider instead a social media platform with a billion users and its moderation choices Where's the line (aka "Sorites paradox")? And who is making the decision?
waheoo 6y ago
Yes. If you create an open space, you are not allowed to moderate free speech. You are allowed to moderare harmful illegal content, you are allowed to moderate spam, and other service breaking content. But kicking someone off because you dont like what they say is censorship. Are you saying it is not censorship somehow? Note, im perfectly fine with you moderating a private forum, e.g. behind a login wall. But if you use the term "public" for visibility there is probably something wrong with censoring speech. And yes, if you want to curate you are a publisher and are liable for the content. If the laws around what liable means are a problem for the tech world maybe they need cleaning up a bit but i think some form of liability should be placed there anyway. You dont get to shape modern discourse and then get to get off scotfree when everything goes pearshaped.
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  If your stance is that people should need to log in to see content in order to have moderation, that's fine. Moderation is absolutely censorship, and I should have every right to censor on a physical or digital platform that I own. If people behave in a manner I don't like in my physical business or on my private property, then I should have the right to remove them. If people behave in a way I don't like on my digital asset, I should have the right to remove them. Their use of my asset is predicated on my consent baring any other contractual details. If they don't like it, they are free to set up their own private enterprises with their own rules of conduct. Saying I am somehow liable for the content that remains is not reasonable. I shouldn't be liable for someone talking shit in my physical business, for a friend saying inflammatory things while in my private residence, for inflammatory conduct on a forum, or any other speech that is not my own unless I myself explicitly endorse that speech (with the exception of illegality that I know about). Me booting off person X while leaving person Y doesn't mean I inherently endorse person Y or agree with them.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    I agree with that stance. And this is where i think the laws might need changing to protect those who are merely providing a private space but do still have to deal with reality. I think potentially we need a third classification to indemnify private spaces of liability. I still believe that public spaces should remain open, nuetral and unmoderated. The world is a scary place, the laws dont line up between countries and weird scary shit will be posted online. Im ok with this. Im ok with the internet being a place to explore our human psychy in its entirety. I dont want it to be a nanny stated corporate friendly chopshop for ideas.

Thorentis 6y ago

I think it is about scale. If you stand up a public forum and you have 100 users, do your moderation choices actually sway a large percentage of public opinion? Consider instead a social media platform with a billion users and its moderation choices. It is time for us to use some common sense and not just dissolve everything down to that simplistic binary terms. Having a forum doesn't make you a publisher. Moderation isn't always bad. There are many other nuances like reach, scale, trust, etc. For instance, there is a huge difference between me posting disinformation of my private blog, and me publishing disinformation is a newspaper read by hundreds of thousands daily. My responsibility and influence over the public increases with the reach I have. We need to think the same way about social media.

darekkay 6y ago
> I think it is about scale. If you stand up a public forum and you have 100 users, do your moderation choices actually sway a large percentage of public opinion? Consider instead a social media platform with a billion users and its moderation choices Where's the line (aka "Sorites paradox")? And who is making the decision?

waheoo 6y ago

Yes. If you create an open space, you are not allowed to moderate free speech. You are allowed to moderare harmful illegal content, you are allowed to moderate spam, and other service breaking content. But kicking someone off because you dont like what they say is censorship. Are you saying it is not censorship somehow? Note, im perfectly fine with you moderating a private forum, e.g. behind a login wall. But if you use the term "public" for visibility there is probably something wrong with censoring speech. And yes, if you want to curate you are a publisher and are liable for the content. If the laws around what liable means are a problem for the tech world maybe they need cleaning up a bit but i think some form of liability should be placed there anyway. You dont get to shape modern discourse and then get to get off scotfree when everything goes pearshaped.

OminousWeapons 6y ago
If your stance is that people should need to log in to see content in order to have moderation, that's fine. Moderation is absolutely censorship, and I should have every right to censor on a physical or digital platform that I own. If people behave in a manner I don't like in my physical business or on my private property, then I should have the right to remove them. If people behave in a way I don't like on my digital asset, I should have the right to remove them. Their use of my asset is predicated on my consent baring any other contractual details. If they don't like it, they are free to set up their own private enterprises with their own rules of conduct. Saying I am somehow liable for the content that remains is not reasonable. I shouldn't be liable for someone talking shit in my physical business, for a friend saying inflammatory things while in my private residence, for inflammatory conduct on a forum, or any other speech that is not my own unless I myself explicitly endorse that speech (with the exception of illegality that I know about). Me booting off person X while leaving person Y doesn't mean I inherently endorse person Y or agree with them.
- waheoo 6y ago
  I agree with that stance. And this is where i think the laws might need changing to protect those who are merely providing a private space but do still have to deal with reality. I think potentially we need a third classification to indemnify private spaces of liability. I still believe that public spaces should remain open, nuetral and unmoderated. The world is a scary place, the laws dont line up between countries and weird scary shit will be posted online. Im ok with this. Im ok with the internet being a place to explore our human psychy in its entirety. I dont want it to be a nanny stated corporate friendly chopshop for ideas.