3 ms·

So are you saying that we should force a private company to carry speech and eliminate their ability to set standards for what they carry/publish? In this case

So are you saying that we should force a private company to carry speech and eliminate their ability to set standards for what they carry/publish? In this case it is particularly interesting since the reputation of a mailer is dealt with in the aggregate- a few “bad apples” (I will use UCE - unsolicited commercial email as the example here) can ruin the reputation of all the mail received from that source. Either way it is a slippery slope.

EricE 6y ago
I have no problem if people set standards. It's when they are vague and applied unevenly that the line between platform and publisher gets crossed. For example, I find it fascinating that Twitter doesn't put warnings on the leader of Iran's racist tweets (or even bans him for clear TOS violations) but peppers the US presidents tweets with warnings. With a straight face you are going to tell me that politics has nothing to do with it?
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  Legally, there is no line between platform and publisher. I’m not sure a line could actually be drawn that is consistent with the first amendment.
  - shortformblog 6y ago
    As Jeff Kosseff, a US Naval Academy professor who actually wrote a book about Section 230, put it in an interview last year: “There has been an increased amount of criticism of the platforms. But it’s not accurate. There’s a First Amendment distinction between publishers and distributors. But since Section 230’s been in place, that’s not really been an issue for the internet.” https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...