3 ms·

> either you are a media company and legally responsible for content, or you are a platform and then you leave people alone unless they are doong somethong ille

by cygx 5y ago

> either you are a media company and legally responsible for content, or you are a platform and then you leave people alone unless they are doong somethong illegal Says who?

Grustaf 5y ago
I think many people agree that the reason phone companies are not held responsible for what people say on the phone is that they have no control over it, they don't make any editorial decisions. Newspapers on the other hand ARE responsible, because they decide what to print. I can't really see how one could argue that Facebook or Twitter should be able to avoid being classified as a newspaper if provide something that is very similar to a gossip magazine, where they can choose freely what to print and not. They can and do ban gossip and unfavourable information about politicians they favour, for example, and they could suppress bad press about people that pay them. I don't think they should be able to do that, without any accountability. Do you? If so, why?
- cygx 5y ago
  I see no reason to ban moderated online spaces. Why should only curated and unmoderated ones be allowed to exist? However, I do agree that there's a discussion to be had about twitter, youtube etc due to their dominant positions within the market. But I don't think that just forcing these companies to host anything that isn't illegal is the right way to go, and would likely result in making them even more shitty than they already are.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    My point wasn’t so much that you shouldn’t be able to moderate, but if you do then I think you’re a different kind of medium than a platform, more like a newspaper, and you should be treated like one and not enjoy the benefits of an unmoderated, unbiased “utility like” platform.
    - cygx 5y ago
      > if you do then I think you’re a different kind of medium than a platform, more like a newspaper Disagreed. Newspaper-like and unmoderated, unbiased “utility like” don't work as exhaustive categories. If I run a BBS, an IRC channel, an internet forum, a subreddit, etc, I would like to be able to moderate without having to pre-approve all messages before publication. I also don't want to have to go to court because someone has posted something illegal which I did not remove in a timely manner, or get sued because I removed something that I thought crossed a line, but was eventually determined by some court not to. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with online services open to the public enforcing house rules. It only becomes an issue when a single service grows so large that it starts to essentially subsume the public sphere. That might require some intervention, but please do so in a nuanced way that isn't based on some imaginary binary distinction between 'publishers' and 'platforms' that hasn't accurately described how online spaces work since the late 70s...
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Maybe we need a new body of law to address this, but to date we have two categories in law: moderated and unmoderated. Somehow Facebook/twitter/e.t.c. are enjoying benefits of both.

by cygx 5y ago

> either you are a media company and legally responsible for content, or you are a platform and then you leave people alone unless they are doong somethong illegal Says who?

Grustaf 5y ago

I think many people agree that the reason phone companies are not held responsible for what people say on the phone is that they have no control over it, they don't make any editorial decisions. Newspapers on the other hand ARE responsible, because they decide what to print. I can't really see how one could argue that Facebook or Twitter should be able to avoid being classified as a newspaper if provide something that is very similar to a gossip magazine, where they can choose freely what to print and not. They can and do ban gossip and unfavourable information about politicians they favour, for example, and they could suppress bad press about people that pay them. I don't think they should be able to do that, without any accountability. Do you? If so, why?

cygx 5y ago
I see no reason to ban moderated online spaces. Why should only curated and unmoderated ones be allowed to exist? However, I do agree that there's a discussion to be had about twitter, youtube etc due to their dominant positions within the market. But I don't think that just forcing these companies to host anything that isn't illegal is the right way to go, and would likely result in making them even more shitty than they already are.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  My point wasn’t so much that you shouldn’t be able to moderate, but if you do then I think you’re a different kind of medium than a platform, more like a newspaper, and you should be treated like one and not enjoy the benefits of an unmoderated, unbiased “utility like” platform.
  - cygx 5y ago
    > if you do then I think you’re a different kind of medium than a platform, more like a newspaper Disagreed. Newspaper-like and unmoderated, unbiased “utility like” don't work as exhaustive categories. If I run a BBS, an IRC channel, an internet forum, a subreddit, etc, I would like to be able to moderate without having to pre-approve all messages before publication. I also don't want to have to go to court because someone has posted something illegal which I did not remove in a timely manner, or get sued because I removed something that I thought crossed a line, but was eventually determined by some court not to. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with online services open to the public enforcing house rules. It only becomes an issue when a single service grows so large that it starts to essentially subsume the public sphere. That might require some intervention, but please do so in a nuanced way that isn't based on some imaginary binary distinction between 'publishers' and 'platforms' that hasn't accurately described how online spaces work since the late 70s...
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Maybe we need a new body of law to address this, but to date we have two categories in law: moderated and unmoderated. Somehow Facebook/twitter/e.t.c. are enjoying benefits of both.