3 ms·

It's no different than a newspaper opting not to print a letter to the editor. It's not state censorship. It's an exercise of editorial discretion.

by lvs 6y ago

Darmody 6y ago
It IS different. Newspapers are publishers, they choose what they publish and they are responsible for it. Social media companies are NOT publishers, therefore they are not responsible for what other publish. If they were like a newspaper they would be sued and out of business in matter of days after all the illegal stuff that it's being posted daily. Read Section 230. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > It IS different. No, it's not. > Newspapers are publishers, they choose what they publish and they are responsible for it. Correct. > Social media companies are NOT publishers, therefore they are not responsible for what other publish. If Social media companies are publishers except for a defined subset of civil liability purposes; an exception (Section 230) which exists explicitly to avoid discouraging them from acting like publishers. > Read Section 230. I have. And I've read the arguments for it at the time it was adopted (both at the time and several times since.) Section 230 supports exactly the opposite position you are making: online media companies have exactly the editorial freedom of newspapers, plus (with regard to actions concerning user-generated rather than first-party-produced content) some liability immunities designed specifically to encourage them to take an editorial role rather than act as neutral unmoderated platforms. The argument that they lose editorial freedom because of Section 230 (or would lose Section 230 protection as a result of exercising editorial freedom) contravenes both the text of and the very explicit motivation for Section 230.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    And even newsstands can choose not to carry a paper.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Good point. It's often overlooked that distributors, who aren't publishers and don't have publisher-like liability, are also selective and are, generally uncontroversially, exercising expressive freedom in that selectivity.

It's no different than a newspaper opting not to print a letter to the editor. It's not state censorship. It's an exercise of editorial discretion.

by lvs 6y ago

It's no different than a newspaper opting not to print a letter to the editor. It's not state censorship. It's an exercise of editorial discretion.

Darmody 6y ago

It IS different. Newspapers are publishers, they choose what they publish and they are responsible for it. Social media companies are NOT publishers, therefore they are not responsible for what other publish. If they were like a newspaper they would be sued and out of business in matter of days after all the illegal stuff that it's being posted daily. Read Section 230. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

dragonwriter 6y ago
> It IS different. No, it's not. > Newspapers are publishers, they choose what they publish and they are responsible for it. Correct. > Social media companies are NOT publishers, therefore they are not responsible for what other publish. If Social media companies are publishers except for a defined subset of civil liability purposes; an exception (Section 230) which exists explicitly to avoid discouraging them from acting like publishers. > Read Section 230. I have. And I've read the arguments for it at the time it was adopted (both at the time and several times since.) Section 230 supports exactly the opposite position you are making: online media companies have exactly the editorial freedom of newspapers, plus (with regard to actions concerning user-generated rather than first-party-produced content) some liability immunities designed specifically to encourage them to take an editorial role rather than act as neutral unmoderated platforms. The argument that they lose editorial freedom because of Section 230 (or would lose Section 230 protection as a result of exercising editorial freedom) contravenes both the text of and the very explicit motivation for Section 230.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  And even newsstands can choose not to carry a paper.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Good point. It's often overlooked that distributors, who aren't publishers and don't have publisher-like liability, are also selective and are, generally uncontroversially, exercising expressive freedom in that selectivity.