3 ms·
No it doesnt create an obligation. The obligation is coming from acting as a platform, a nuetral ground where people can share information. The second you step
by waheoo 6y ago
No it doesnt create an obligation. The obligation is coming from acting as a platform, a nuetral ground where people can share information. The second you step in and curate or moderate you cross the line into being a publisher.
There is more discussion about the moderators dillema above.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y agoThat doesn't mean anything. Facebook doesn't claim to be neither "platform" or "neutral ground" or "publisher", anywhere. There is no law making that distinction. It's entirely in your head! It's a website. You may post. They may delete. You may leave. If just one of their billions of users writes something bad about billionaire <y>, who then sues in a UK court and gets a Gawker-like verdict, Facebook suddenly owes them a a few million of whatever the local currency is. Repeat for every single mistake of their team of moderators, and they are done for within 20 minutes. And so are Youtube, HN, and Google. No moderation would lead to 4chan. Or, really, worse. Because even the chans all moderate to some degree, as far as I can tell. This would also be the end of any platform as we know it, obviously. Therefore, you either don't even understand what you are arguing for. Or you somehow enjoy the idea of every single online community degrading to a constant stream of snuff videos and swastikas.
- TheOperator 6y agoI've done some moderation in the past. Of the posts actually written by humans maybe 1% got removed for not following the stated rules. Does removing 1% of posts that somebody else makes, make me a "publisher"? Seems a bit rediculous to me.