4 ms·

It is not my responsibility to define whether it is a "platform" or a "publisher" as a user. I feel it is behaving more as a publisher than as a platform. I hav

It is not my responsibility to define whether it is a "platform" or a "publisher" as a user. I feel it is behaving more as a publisher than as a platform. I have explained in detail my reasoning (if you wish to learn more about my stand on this): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716300 I have no issues with any social media groups taking action on posts that are explicitly illegal (based on your jurisdiction): child porn, gambling, calls to violence etc. My problem lies in the power that these social media companies enjoy. They can literally influence people in ways that could never have been done in the past. You are always connected to Google or Facebook wherever you go. Through their "audience network" they have nearly 100% reach to every user in the World. Yes that includes any app that you use on your mobile that shows you ads. With that kind of power, these social media companies have more reach than any Government on this planet. They can influence elections in profound ways. They can swing voters to any policy they feel meets their goals. There has to be some sort of regulation that keeps these powers in check! Censorship of voices is just the first step towards building an Orwellian society where every flow of information is controlled by these media giants.

CerealFounder 6y ago
They've always been censoring is my point. Profanity, porn and hatefulness is a normative decision. This also doesn't touch the problem that the platform based on its content structuring and targeting will always reward emotional ideas over everything. You're just frustrated now because they came for your voice. If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and responsibility that broadcast media is.
- shripadk 6y ago
  > If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and responsibility that broadcast media is. But then don't you think that is selective application of law? Why should they be held to the same annoying process and responsibility only for advertising? Why not for the entire platform or publisher or whatever you want to call it. Let them be held liable for every post that goes on their network just like broadcast media is. Why just stop at advertising? EDIT: > You're just frustrated now because they came for your voice Maybe they are suppressing other voices too which I am unaware of. But that point is not going to change my opinion is it? That these social media companies do enjoy powers that even Governments do not. My question is: Why are we letting them get away with it?
  - belltaco 6y ago
    Section 230 was explicitly written to allow a hybrid between platforms and publishers. It stemmed from a court case where a financial forum run by Prodigy was successfully sued for a forum post by a member. It was designed to allow forums like HN etc. moderate without being liable for users' posts. You can argue about what you think the law should be, contact your local reps and push a bill to do that. But just repeating the argument about how Twitter is behaving like a publisher won't get you far when there have been court cases that ended in the judges saying what they do is the intent of Section 230. Again, you're arguing like it's 1992.
    - olivermarks 6y ago
      Twitter crossed the Rubicon a few weeks ago by editorializing the US president's tweets with 'fact check' links. This has jeopardized the entire S230 gravy train for much of the BigTech platform service sector
      - belltaco 6y ago
        How so? Is it going to get Congress to pass a bill to revoke Section 230? Otherwise there is nothing happening, we have a President, not a dictator. How is Twitter going to be hurt?
    - shripadk 6y ago
      I am not a US Citizen so I cannot push for changes to the law. But please try and understand that Twitter operates in well over 100+ countries. Section 230's jurisdiction only applies to the US. It doesn't extend to other nations. Now what will happen to the platform if it arbitrarily starts acting as a publisher? Other Countries will start regulating it or ban it which is obviously not in the interests of these companies. So taking the legal route will create a huge mess for these companies because once that process starts it cannot be stopped unless one of the parties pulls back. If a resolution can be found without taking the legal route then it should be pursued. That can only happen through dialogue and discussion. But for some strange reason this is shunned by the liberal gang. If we have to go to the courts for everything then we don't even need discussions in the first place.

CerealFounder 6y ago

They've always been censoring is my point. Profanity, porn and hatefulness is a normative decision. This also doesn't touch the problem that the platform based on its content structuring and targeting will always reward emotional ideas over everything. You're just frustrated now because they came for your voice. If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and responsibility that broadcast media is.

shripadk 6y ago
> If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and responsibility that broadcast media is. But then don't you think that is selective application of law? Why should they be held to the same annoying process and responsibility only for advertising? Why not for the entire platform or publisher or whatever you want to call it. Let them be held liable for every post that goes on their network just like broadcast media is. Why just stop at advertising? EDIT: > You're just frustrated now because they came for your voice Maybe they are suppressing other voices too which I am unaware of. But that point is not going to change my opinion is it? That these social media companies do enjoy powers that even Governments do not. My question is: Why are we letting them get away with it?
- belltaco 6y ago
  Section 230 was explicitly written to allow a hybrid between platforms and publishers. It stemmed from a court case where a financial forum run by Prodigy was successfully sued for a forum post by a member. It was designed to allow forums like HN etc. moderate without being liable for users' posts. You can argue about what you think the law should be, contact your local reps and push a bill to do that. But just repeating the argument about how Twitter is behaving like a publisher won't get you far when there have been court cases that ended in the judges saying what they do is the intent of Section 230. Again, you're arguing like it's 1992.
  - olivermarks 6y ago
    Twitter crossed the Rubicon a few weeks ago by editorializing the US president's tweets with 'fact check' links. This has jeopardized the entire S230 gravy train for much of the BigTech platform service sector
    - belltaco 6y ago
      How so? Is it going to get Congress to pass a bill to revoke Section 230? Otherwise there is nothing happening, we have a President, not a dictator. How is Twitter going to be hurt?
  - shripadk 6y ago
    I am not a US Citizen so I cannot push for changes to the law. But please try and understand that Twitter operates in well over 100+ countries. Section 230's jurisdiction only applies to the US. It doesn't extend to other nations. Now what will happen to the platform if it arbitrarily starts acting as a publisher? Other Countries will start regulating it or ban it which is obviously not in the interests of these companies. So taking the legal route will create a huge mess for these companies because once that process starts it cannot be stopped unless one of the parties pulls back. If a resolution can be found without taking the legal route then it should be pursued. That can only happen through dialogue and discussion. But for some strange reason this is shunned by the liberal gang. If we have to go to the courts for everything then we don't even need discussions in the first place.