4 ms·

What I don’t understand is that if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform. They should thus be held accountable for any

What I don’t understand is that if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform. They should thus be held accountable for any improper editorial decisions that they make in the same way that a newspaper would be via civil suit.

AlexandrB 6y ago
They're already acting as editors thanks to the algorithmic feed. Thus people are trying to hold them accountable for any improper editorial decisions.
- WalterSear 6y ago
  The simple solution would be to stop recommending posts - either from within our social circle, or from people and organizations we aren't affiliated with. At that point, whatever damage is being done won't be undone, but facebook can genuinely say it is not maintinaing editorial control. But, they won't do that, because their business model is based on editorial control. There's no way around their culpability.
triceratops 6y ago
> if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform. This is a common misconception, but that's not what the law actually says. I'd encourage you to go read Section 230 yourself. It says a platform can't be held legally liable for: "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" The NYT and Fox News are publishers but they're only liable for the stuff they write and publish themselves. If someone on their comments section posts objectionable or illegal content they aren't liable for it. And they're free to moderate their comments section in any way they wish. BTW consider the alternative if it wasn't this way. Activists could flood 2A message boards with "guns evil, ban them all" spam and the mods could do nothing to stop them lest they lose Section 230 protections. Trolls could harass users on forums for sensitive topics such as dealing with grief, cancer, PTSD or other traumas. Every online forum would become totally unusable.
driverdan 6y ago
What do you mean by "improper editorial decisions?" It's their platform, they can remove or restrict what people post in any way they want. If you don't like it you don't have to use it. Every platform "polices" content. If they didn't every site would be 80%+ spam and full of porn and hate.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

AlexandrB 6y ago

They're already acting as editors thanks to the algorithmic feed. Thus people are trying to hold them accountable for any improper editorial decisions.

WalterSear 6y ago
The simple solution would be to stop recommending posts - either from within our social circle, or from people and organizations we aren't affiliated with. At that point, whatever damage is being done won't be undone, but facebook can genuinely say it is not maintinaing editorial control. But, they won't do that, because their business model is based on editorial control. There's no way around their culpability.

triceratops 6y ago

> if they are going to police opinions, they are acting as editors, not a platform. This is a common misconception, but that's not what the law actually says. I'd encourage you to go read Section 230 yourself. It says a platform can't be held legally liable for: "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" The NYT and Fox News are publishers but they're only liable for the stuff they write and publish themselves. If someone on their comments section posts objectionable or illegal content they aren't liable for it. And they're free to moderate their comments section in any way they wish. BTW consider the alternative if it wasn't this way. Activists could flood 2A message boards with "guns evil, ban them all" spam and the mods could do nothing to stop them lest they lose Section 230 protections. Trolls could harass users on forums for sensitive topics such as dealing with grief, cancer, PTSD or other traumas. Every online forum would become totally unusable.

driverdan 6y ago

What do you mean by "improper editorial decisions?" It's their platform, they can remove or restrict what people post in any way they want. If you don't like it you don't have to use it. Every platform "polices" content. If they didn't every site would be 80%+ spam and full of porn and hate.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]