4 ms·

You can't claim you're not a publisher when you start promoting stories that push one narrative while blacklisting stories questioning that narrative. Imagine a

You can't claim you're not a publisher when you start promoting stories that push one narrative while blacklisting stories questioning that narrative. Imagine a news site that accepts submissions from the public, but filter which content is visible based on their own views, claiming no responsibility for the BS they allow on the frontpage.

basch 6y ago
yes you can, thats what 230 protects. a private companies ability to censor reach does not turn it into a speaker. you can selectively choose what to allow and what to deny on your platform. like a spam filter, but for anything.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  right, which is why section 230 should be repealed, because they're censoring politically and control what people see, shaping public opinion in large ways. They should be liable for the content of their platforms since they demonstrated the ability to control whats on them. They'd get freedom to control their platform, just without a special legal exemption that gives them immunity from the results of their control on of their platform.
  - darkwizard42 6y ago
    The results of the control of their platform are... that you can choose not to use it. Section 230 says you have a right to speech, not a right to a platform giving you reach.
    - LegitShady 6y ago
      I don't use it, I just dont want them to have legal exemptions other publishers don't get while they control what information people are or aren't allowed to see.
  - basch 6y ago
    >They'd get freedom to control their platform, just without a special legal exemption that gives them immunity from the results of their control on of their platform. Exactly, thats the point. It's a market economy of platforms. >they're censoring politically and control what people see, shaping public opinion in large ways. Companies are allowed to choose what they say and project outward. The problem here is a lack of interoperability between platforms, institutional silos. Standardized data exports and imports. Cross platform messaging and subscription. 230 exists precisely to prevent the world you are advocating. It's not an accidentally careless law that had a loophole, it's intent is to protect private companies first amendment rights. >They should be liable for the content of their platforms since they demonstrated the ability to control whats on them. Says who? I dont think they have at all demonstrated they are good at controlling whats on their platforms. They are ok at at, at best.

basch 6y ago

yes you can, thats what 230 protects. a private companies ability to censor reach does not turn it into a speaker. you can selectively choose what to allow and what to deny on your platform. like a spam filter, but for anything.

LegitShady 6y ago
right, which is why section 230 should be repealed, because they're censoring politically and control what people see, shaping public opinion in large ways. They should be liable for the content of their platforms since they demonstrated the ability to control whats on them. They'd get freedom to control their platform, just without a special legal exemption that gives them immunity from the results of their control on of their platform.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  The results of the control of their platform are... that you can choose not to use it. Section 230 says you have a right to speech, not a right to a platform giving you reach.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    I don't use it, I just dont want them to have legal exemptions other publishers don't get while they control what information people are or aren't allowed to see.
- basch 6y ago
  >They'd get freedom to control their platform, just without a special legal exemption that gives them immunity from the results of their control on of their platform. Exactly, thats the point. It's a market economy of platforms. >they're censoring politically and control what people see, shaping public opinion in large ways. Companies are allowed to choose what they say and project outward. The problem here is a lack of interoperability between platforms, institutional silos. Standardized data exports and imports. Cross platform messaging and subscription. 230 exists precisely to prevent the world you are advocating. It's not an accidentally careless law that had a loophole, it's intent is to protect private companies first amendment rights. >They should be liable for the content of their platforms since they demonstrated the ability to control whats on them. Says who? I dont think they have at all demonstrated they are good at controlling whats on their platforms. They are ok at at, at best.