4 ms·
> it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content This is not always true, and that is the issue. If the government is going to, for ins
by COGlory 6y ago
> it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content
This is not always true, and that is the issue. If the government is going to, for instance, tell us we can't gather on public property, there has to be some way to guarantee that a digital commons will remain.
- __s 6y agoLet Poland run news.polishcombinator.com where they decide to not moderate anything not against Polish law then Are we going to have dang explain how any post he moderates violates Polish law? What about what he's moderating which isn't illegal in Poland?
- bzb6 6y agoNobody seemed to care too much here about these issues when the gdpr was shoved into the faces of everybody.
- __s 6y agoLots of people were wary of the GDPR. But "don't track our population" is streets ahead of "don't moderate content" To be clear I'm not too worried about this. It seems like unenforceable policy
- bzb6 6y agoWhen the livelihood of those businesses depends entirely on their ability to track their users to deliver better ads, I would say that’s so much worse than letting conservative people express themselves freely.
- crististm 6y agoIf gathering in public space is gone we have bigger problems than wifi not working.
- paxys 6y agoIn what sense is a private commercial website public space?
- COGlory 6y agoSome judges have hinted that it effectively is: https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/packingham-v-north-carolina/ https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/packingham-v-north-caro... Ultimately, though, I think the jury is still out.