3 ms·

"The platforms are attempting to limit their exposure to facilitating such actions" By "exposure", perhaps the commenter means possible sedition charges. To m

"The platforms are attempting to limit their exposure to facilitating such actions" By "exposure", perhaps the commenter means possible sedition charges. To me, this is further evidence that these websites are neither common carrier nor public forum. The telephone company is not going to cut off anyone's service because of seditious communications. Nor is any public place going to ban people from committing seditious acts there. They will just be arrested when they commit the the crime. Will any ISP terminate anyone's service for fear of enabling sedition. These companies like Google are, first and foremost, websites. The website is the company. If there is no website, there is no company. What is interesting about this is that these websites are protected by Section 230. Are there limits to Section 230 protection. Do they end at sedition.

invisible 6y ago
If Times Square sold advertising that incited violence against the government, I think they would be involved in any charges.
- apple_innocent 6y ago
  Wrong analogy. If someone got up to speak in Times Square, incited violence, and was charged with sedition, then the owner of Times Square is not going to be named in any charges.
  - thombat 6y ago
    The owner of Times Square relies upon the big advertising signs for their income. The companies that pay big bucks for those signs decline to renew their contracts, because those signs have become best known as the backdrop for sedition rants, tainting their brands. So the owner bans the best known ranters as a way of signalling to the advertisers that the problem is being addressed and they should keep spending,
    - apple_innocent 6y ago
      "The owner of Times Square relies upon the big advertising signs for their income." Times Square is just the first public place that I thought of. Not every public place is used for advertising. What if it was the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The point is that, generally, necessary permits notwithstanding, people can enter always public places and communicate with the public. That is why they are deemed public places not private ones. I am not even sure what advertising has to do with this. Maybe I missed something in the story. I was under the impression it was a YouTube "channel" getting banned not some customer's ability to purchase ads from Google to be shown on YouTube.
  - invisible 6y ago
    I don’t think there is a perfect analogy. They are being given a venue (their profile) a distribution (users; eyes of consumers) in the millions. Maybe if Times Square allowed and played seditious content with advertising in it that would be apt?
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
I believe section 230 only protects you from civil suits, it does not protect you from criminal charges.
- apple_innocent 6y ago
  Yes, there are limits. See, e.g., 230(e)(1)

invisible 6y ago

If Times Square sold advertising that incited violence against the government, I think they would be involved in any charges.

apple_innocent 6y ago
Wrong analogy. If someone got up to speak in Times Square, incited violence, and was charged with sedition, then the owner of Times Square is not going to be named in any charges.
- thombat 6y ago
  The owner of Times Square relies upon the big advertising signs for their income. The companies that pay big bucks for those signs decline to renew their contracts, because those signs have become best known as the backdrop for sedition rants, tainting their brands. So the owner bans the best known ranters as a way of signalling to the advertisers that the problem is being addressed and they should keep spending,
  - apple_innocent 6y ago
    "The owner of Times Square relies upon the big advertising signs for their income." Times Square is just the first public place that I thought of. Not every public place is used for advertising. What if it was the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The point is that, generally, necessary permits notwithstanding, people can enter always public places and communicate with the public. That is why they are deemed public places not private ones. I am not even sure what advertising has to do with this. Maybe I missed something in the story. I was under the impression it was a YouTube "channel" getting banned not some customer's ability to purchase ads from Google to be shown on YouTube.
- invisible 6y ago
  I don’t think there is a perfect analogy. They are being given a venue (their profile) a distribution (users; eyes of consumers) in the millions. Maybe if Times Square allowed and played seditious content with advertising in it that would be apt?

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

I believe section 230 only protects you from civil suits, it does not protect you from criminal charges.

apple_innocent 6y ago
Yes, there are limits. See, e.g., 230(e)(1)