3 ms·

The logic is that by banning and moderating they are taking editorial decisions which mark them out as being a "publisher" as opposed to an impartial "platform"

The logic is that by banning and moderating they are taking editorial decisions which mark them out as being a "publisher" as opposed to an impartial "platform". It's a bit of a stretch. For these big companies I think governments gave them the choice to censor or be broken up, so they chose censorship. Now the governments are wanting more regulation. I don't know how they all are responding but could Facebook be handling this dilemma better than Twitter, or would Facebook also be under their sights? How could Amazon etc be targeted?

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
I'd rather fancy a system where such platforms can choose between being a publisher and a platform. If they be a publisher, they may take editorial control but the also become liable for anything that escaped their control and can no longer claim “The views expressed here are not our own.”. In the alternative, they can be a platform, and may not take editorial control and only be required and allowed to remove content they are legally required to remove. The current situation is that they want their cake and eat it too.
- spaced-out 6y ago
  >In the alternative they can be a platform, and may not take editorial control and only be required and allowed to remove content they are legally required to remove. Any platform that tries to do this will quickly fill up with spam.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    This is what 8chan does and it did not fill up with it. They're permitted to implement restrictions on that only humans and not bots may post, not on content, provided that it be legal. 8chan had a system where one had to solve a captcha every day and where one was not permitted to post more than one message per minute.
dgellow 6y ago
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...

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

I'd rather fancy a system where such platforms can choose between being a publisher and a platform. If they be a publisher, they may take editorial control but the also become liable for anything that escaped their control and can no longer claim “The views expressed here are not our own.”. In the alternative, they can be a platform, and may not take editorial control and only be required and allowed to remove content they are legally required to remove. The current situation is that they want their cake and eat it too.

spaced-out 6y ago
>In the alternative they can be a platform, and may not take editorial control and only be required and allowed to remove content they are legally required to remove. Any platform that tries to do this will quickly fill up with spam.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  This is what 8chan does and it did not fill up with it. They're permitted to implement restrictions on that only humans and not bots may post, not on content, provided that it be legal. 8chan had a system where one had to solve a captcha every day and where one was not permitted to post more than one message per minute.

dgellow 6y ago

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...