3 ms·
It doesn't unpublish it, but in the long run it sets up Twitter and Facebook as de facto deciders of what type of content is created. To the extent that newspap
by paulgb 6y ago
It doesn't unpublish it, but in the long run it sets up Twitter and Facebook as de facto deciders of what type of content is created. To the extent that newspapers rely on social media for traffic, the editorial decisions of those platforms will silently shape the content of those newspapers. It's the “hidden” aspect of this control that worries me.
The difference in the printing press analogy is that if a printing company won't print my poster, I can take it elsewhere.
- joshuamorton 6y agoEven if there's one poster printing company in town, they have first amendment rights. You don't lose those for being too successful.
- juniper_strong 6y agoIf a poster printing company started making editorial decisions about which posters they printed, they would be at risk of being considered a publisher and as such being liable for the content of the posters they printed. That isn't true for internet content providers due to section 230.
- joshuamorton 6y agoThey are already liable for such things because they make active editorial decisions. If internet publishers make active editorial decisions, they are also liable. Consider the new york times online. I gave an example elsewhere that the owner of a physical bulletin board wouldn't be liable for posters on it, even if they occasionally came by and took down ones that they felt should be removed (for any reason). Section 230 claims that internet sites are more like a physical bulletin board then a newspaper, in that they are remove-later, not review-first models. Aa such they deserve the same liability as physical remove-later systems: relatively few.