5 ms·

I think the idea is that the tech giants are NOT publishers. If they were, they would be responsible for third-party content. So they can't really use that argu

I think the idea is that the tech giants are NOT publishers. If they were, they would be responsible for third-party content. So they can't really use that argument if they want to continue being exempted from responsibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

hackyhacky 5y ago
Section 230 does not mean what you think. 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...
mikeyouse 5y ago
Literally read the link you just posted, the text of Section 230 makes absolutely no distinction between 'Publishers' and platforms. I really wish people would stop parroting this completely incorrect reading of the law. Or take it from Mike Masnick: > If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" > I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you've likely heard this from someone else -- perhaps even someone respected -- but it's just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. > To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it. 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...
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  The point that people are making is that they believe the "spirit of the law" is a conceptual split between platforms and publishers. The way people commonly think of telephones vs newspapers. Telephones are a platform for speaking, newspapers are a publisher with editorial control. The discussion is not about whether or not social media companies have Section 230 protection but whether or not they should have it.
aphextron 5y ago
>I think the idea is that the tech giants are NOT publishers. If they were, they would be responsible for third-party content In an ideal world we repeal Section 230 and the US government provides, free of charge, a small digital space for each citizen to say whatever they want in the context of free speech. There's no reason we should allow these tech monopolies to exist and maintain their fiefdoms of extrajudicial decisions about what is or isn't considered protected speech. If we want to assert that digital communication is a protected right, there's no other way.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  >>maintain their fiefdoms of extrajudicial decisions about what is or isn't considered protected speech Where do they do that? My understanding of U.S.A. First amendment is that government won't infringe on your right of free speech. It doesn't say you can come into my home, workplace, store, or website and yell what you want on my property. There's nothing "Extrajudicial" about it and it's not "Protected speech". It's just a business owner saying "you can say whatever you want, but not necessarily in my home, on a platform I built and pay for". I think we've gone weird somewhere if we think Facebook == Public Square on any level. It's just somebody's storefront (and insert cliches about who / what is the product :) In some ways, I am hoping tech giants do MORE weird policies / bans / things, so hopefully general population sees it as a private proprietary closed property / platform that it is, not a friendly public gathering spot we somehow take it for. But I still don't think they are doing anything illegal/extrajudicial... it seems people feel they have strange rights or ownership on Facebook or Twitter, have some investment in property, treat it almost as a mix of paid-for condo and public space (depending on what they need to assert at the moment)... and none of that is the case. At best, you are walking in a Mall, and if you start yelling obscenities, pontificating, or even start advertising for different shops etc, the mall security guard will escort you out, as is legal and proper. It's not government infringing your constitutionally protect free speech, it's not extrajudicial, even if you don't like it and really really wanted to yell obscenities or market your business or promote your personal point of view in the mall.
  - mrfusion 5y ago
NikolaNovak 5y ago
Yeah that Platform vs Publishers thing is one of the most misunderstood things among internet geeks - I was completely wrong (and perpetuated my wrongness to others!) about it through hearsay for two decades until last year: 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... edit: Wow, 3+ of us jumped in with same link, Mr. Masnick has a following here :D
- throwaway4china 5y ago
  or you are all sheep
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Ha - yep. Domain experts are very useful!

hackyhacky 5y ago

Section 230 does not mean what you think. 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...

mikeyouse 5y ago

Literally read the link you just posted, the text of Section 230 makes absolutely no distinction between 'Publishers' and platforms. I really wish people would stop parroting this completely incorrect reading of the law. Or take it from Mike Masnick: > If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" > I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you've likely heard this from someone else -- perhaps even someone respected -- but it's just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. > To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it. 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...

AbrahamParangi 5y ago
The point that people are making is that they believe the "spirit of the law" is a conceptual split between platforms and publishers. The way people commonly think of telephones vs newspapers. Telephones are a platform for speaking, newspapers are a publisher with editorial control. The discussion is not about whether or not social media companies have Section 230 protection but whether or not they should have it.

aphextron 5y ago

>I think the idea is that the tech giants are NOT publishers. If they were, they would be responsible for third-party content In an ideal world we repeal Section 230 and the US government provides, free of charge, a small digital space for each citizen to say whatever they want in the context of free speech. There's no reason we should allow these tech monopolies to exist and maintain their fiefdoms of extrajudicial decisions about what is or isn't considered protected speech. If we want to assert that digital communication is a protected right, there's no other way.

NikolaNovak 5y ago
>>maintain their fiefdoms of extrajudicial decisions about what is or isn't considered protected speech Where do they do that? My understanding of U.S.A. First amendment is that government won't infringe on your right of free speech. It doesn't say you can come into my home, workplace, store, or website and yell what you want on my property. There's nothing "Extrajudicial" about it and it's not "Protected speech". It's just a business owner saying "you can say whatever you want, but not necessarily in my home, on a platform I built and pay for". I think we've gone weird somewhere if we think Facebook == Public Square on any level. It's just somebody's storefront (and insert cliches about who / what is the product :) In some ways, I am hoping tech giants do MORE weird policies / bans / things, so hopefully general population sees it as a private proprietary closed property / platform that it is, not a friendly public gathering spot we somehow take it for. But I still don't think they are doing anything illegal/extrajudicial... it seems people feel they have strange rights or ownership on Facebook or Twitter, have some investment in property, treat it almost as a mix of paid-for condo and public space (depending on what they need to assert at the moment)... and none of that is the case. At best, you are walking in a Mall, and if you start yelling obscenities, pontificating, or even start advertising for different shops etc, the mall security guard will escort you out, as is legal and proper. It's not government infringing your constitutionally protect free speech, it's not extrajudicial, even if you don't like it and really really wanted to yell obscenities or market your business or promote your personal point of view in the mall.
- mrfusion 5y ago

NikolaNovak 5y ago

Yeah that Platform vs Publishers thing is one of the most misunderstood things among internet geeks - I was completely wrong (and perpetuated my wrongness to others!) about it through hearsay for two decades until last year: 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... edit: Wow, 3+ of us jumped in with same link, Mr. Masnick has a following here :D

throwaway4china 5y ago
or you are all sheep
mikeyouse 5y ago
Ha - yep. Domain experts are very useful!