3 ms·
Much like you can stand in a public park and say whatever you want, you can host your own website and post whatever you want. You can't however, walk into say
by eertami 6y ago
Much like you can stand in a public park and say whatever you want, you can host your own website and post whatever you want.
You can't however, walk into say a Burger King and not expect to get thrown out if you start making extreme statements.
The problem you've identified is social media platforms having power over public discourse. However I disagree that forcing website owners to host whatever their users want to say is a way to solve that. The real solution in my mind is for people to turn away from social media.
In other words, social media itself is the problem. Not the fact that social media inhibits free speech.
- waheoo 6y agoWhile this is about free speech, its more specifically about whether you can class social media as a platform or a publisher. Publishers are liable. Platforms are not. I simply want social media to get off the fence. Because right now they sre misleading the public, telling them they can post whatever they want, and then flipping on them when it suits. Nobody will turn away from social media until this is clear and understood. If you defined facebook as a publisher, you will see a replacement valuing openness rise up within days. Which would win is hard to say. Maybe people like being sheep. But at least this way they know what they are.
- joshuamorton 6y agoThis is legally speaking, nonsense. Us law doesn't differentiate between publishers and platforms with regard to content liability. Everyone is liable for first party content, but not for third party content.
- esyir 6y agoThe point of messing with section 230 is to undo that. Basically, it's the first party starts curating the third party, they're now "publishing" that