5 ms·

So they should be free to be regulated as a publisher despite claiming they are a platform

by mshumi 6y ago

lanstin 6y ago
Are you saying publishers can’t arbitrarily decide what to publish or not? I think you will find that publishers have a lot more say so over their content than e.g. phone companies.
- ggreer 6y ago
  Publishers can be as arbitrary as they want, but they are held liable for what they publish. Section 230 gives civil immunity to "information service providers". If someone libels you on Twitter, you can't sue Twitter. But if Twitter starts making editorial decisions as to what is fit to publish and what isn't, then they could lose their section 230 protections and open themselves to tons of lawsuits.
  - messick 6y ago
    This will help you with future Sec 230 hot takes: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
    - mshumi 6y ago
      That was a very good read. Thanks for linking that!
    - ggreer 6y ago
      I've read that before and I've discussed it with a lawyer (among other related articles & topics). He rolled his eyes at much of it, but he also rolled his eyes at the "platform vs publisher" distinction that so many naive people make. Still, he agrees that social media companies are tickling the dragon's tail when it comes to Section 230 protection. Before you dismiss my anecdote as one mistaken lawyer, note that the chairman of the FCC (who is a lawyer) and Justice Clarence Thomas both think that Section 230 doesn't offer nearly as much protection as social media companies seem to think it does. In response to recent events, the FCC plans to issue statements clarifying the meaning of Section 230.[1] 1. https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/1316808733805236226 https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/1316808733805236226 "Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters."
- rstupek 6y ago
  I think what he said is if twitter wishes to be a publisher they should be treated as such. What they want to be is NOT a publisher but a platform since different rules apply to platforms than are applied to publishers.
  - lanstin 6y ago
    I wouldn’t mind if people could sue Twitter but if your goal is unregulated speech then removing section 230 is counter productive.
    - 75dvtwin 6y ago
      I do not think that that's what will happen. Section 230 will NOT get removed. ISPs and email service providers, and blog platforms, will still be able to use it. But companies that add/remove/replace/gray-out/delete/hide/push-to-bottom content that they claim they did not editorialize -- will be called Publishers. So these businesses will not be able to use statutory protections that are available for non-publishers under section 45.230. An analogy might be: a for-profit-business cannot claim tax benefits available for a non-for-profit organizations. So the tax-code does not get removed, just because somebody was actively abusing it. It stays the same, but the abuser would face criminal investigation. And if the abuser was found to systemically and purposefully avoiding to be recognized as 'Publisher' (or as a for-profit business in this analogy), then the criminal penalties would be more severe, then otherwise.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Are you saying publishers can’t arbitrarily decide what to publish or not? Publishers can do this, yes. They just are not offered the legal protections of being a platform, if they act as a publisher. The point is, that someone is acting as a publisher, then they should have these legal protections taken away form them.
triceratops 6y ago
This platform/publisher dichotomy is made-up bullshit. You have to write and publish something yourself to be called a publisher. Moderation on an internet forum doesn't make you a publisher. Is HN a publisher too? dang pretty actively moderates the conversations here.
- hackerfromthefu 6y ago
  But editing, rearranging, and deleting someones words can make entirely new meanings of it. In music they call that sampling. In social media they call that 'feed'. In politics they call that propoganda. In reality we call it bias.

So they should be free to be regulated as a publisher despite claiming they are a platform

by mshumi 6y ago

So they should be free to be regulated as a publisher despite claiming they are a platform

Are you saying publishers can’t arbitrarily decide what to publish or not? I think you will find that publishers have a lot more say so over their content than e.g. phone companies.

ggreer 6y ago
Publishers can be as arbitrary as they want, but they are held liable for what they publish. Section 230 gives civil immunity to "information service providers". If someone libels you on Twitter, you can't sue Twitter. But if Twitter starts making editorial decisions as to what is fit to publish and what isn't, then they could lose their section 230 protections and open themselves to tons of lawsuits.
- messick 6y ago
  This will help you with future Sec 230 hot takes: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
  - mshumi 6y ago
    That was a very good read. Thanks for linking that!
  - ggreer 6y ago
    I've read that before and I've discussed it with a lawyer (among other related articles & topics). He rolled his eyes at much of it, but he also rolled his eyes at the "platform vs publisher" distinction that so many naive people make. Still, he agrees that social media companies are tickling the dragon's tail when it comes to Section 230 protection. Before you dismiss my anecdote as one mistaken lawyer, note that the chairman of the FCC (who is a lawyer) and Justice Clarence Thomas both think that Section 230 doesn't offer nearly as much protection as social media companies seem to think it does. In response to recent events, the FCC plans to issue statements clarifying the meaning of Section 230.[1] 1. https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/1316808733805236226 https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/1316808733805236226 "Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters."
rstupek 6y ago
I think what he said is if twitter wishes to be a publisher they should be treated as such. What they want to be is NOT a publisher but a platform since different rules apply to platforms than are applied to publishers.
- lanstin 6y ago
  I wouldn’t mind if people could sue Twitter but if your goal is unregulated speech then removing section 230 is counter productive.
  - 75dvtwin 6y ago
    I do not think that that's what will happen. Section 230 will NOT get removed. ISPs and email service providers, and blog platforms, will still be able to use it. But companies that add/remove/replace/gray-out/delete/hide/push-to-bottom content that they claim they did not editorialize -- will be called Publishers. So these businesses will not be able to use statutory protections that are available for non-publishers under section 45.230. An analogy might be: a for-profit-business cannot claim tax benefits available for a non-for-profit organizations. So the tax-code does not get removed, just because somebody was actively abusing it. It stays the same, but the abuser would face criminal investigation. And if the abuser was found to systemically and purposefully avoiding to be recognized as 'Publisher' (or as a for-profit business in this analogy), then the criminal penalties would be more severe, then otherwise.
stale2002 6y ago
> Are you saying publishers can’t arbitrarily decide what to publish or not? Publishers can do this, yes. They just are not offered the legal protections of being a platform, if they act as a publisher. The point is, that someone is acting as a publisher, then they should have these legal protections taken away form them.

triceratops 6y ago

This platform/publisher dichotomy is made-up bullshit. You have to write and publish something yourself to be called a publisher. Moderation on an internet forum doesn't make you a publisher. Is HN a publisher too? dang pretty actively moderates the conversations here.

hackerfromthefu 6y ago
But editing, rearranging, and deleting someones words can make entirely new meanings of it. In music they call that sampling. In social media they call that 'feed'. In politics they call that propoganda. In reality we call it bias.