5 ms·

This law is clearly misguided, but let's start the conversation. Isn't an organisation controlling an algorithm that prioritizes news items essentially doing ed

This law is clearly misguided, but let's start the conversation. Isn't an organisation controlling an algorithm that prioritizes news items essentially doing editorial work? Shouldn't it then have similar responsibility as a newspaper?

paxys 5y ago
What responsibility does a newspaper (or news channel/website) have? Is this any different from CNN, Fox News, WSJ, Breitbart publishing op-eds to push a certain point of view?
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  It means the publisher can be sued for libel and not just the random nobodies with no power.
  - anticristi 5y ago
    Exactly! Newspapers are held to a higher standard for their content.
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      For their content that they pay for, yes, but for 'letters to the editor' and the like that random people send in? My understanding is that no, they're not liable for those things. Well, not legally liable anyway, the court of public opinion is a different matter.
      - Consultant32452 5y ago
        It's one thing when a publisher explicitly labels something as an opinion, such as the letter to the editor section of the paper. It's another thing entirely when Twitter or Facebook make false accusations about you in the process of banning you. Like let's say you had some ideas about where COVID originated and they banned you, slandering your good name in the process, by saying you were spreading falsehoods and conspiracy theories.
  - anjbe 5y ago
    Can a newspaper be sued for letters to the editor, views that are clearly not those of the paper itself? Can a newspaper be sued for comments on its website?
smt88 5y ago
Yes, news algorithms are a form of journalistic editorial. With that premise, social media should even more clearly protected from government censorship (like this bill). Facebook is way too powerful and news algorthms are perhaps destroying democracy, but trampling on the First Amendment is not the solution.
jameshart 5y ago
Newspapers aren't obliged to carry unedited content, comment-free, for anyone who asks them to.
- anticristi 5y ago
  Social media isn't obliged to carry unedited content either. They just do it because it maximises profit.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    >Social media isn't obliged to carry unedited content either. They will be in Florida though.
kvathupo 5y ago
Your comment is presumably being flagged for an unpopular take, but I think it's meaningful to have a conversation (I can't say my earlier quip provides anything of value). The first thing I did was google what's been chewed on in popular discourse: "publisher vs platform law." To my surprise, my understanding of the law was wrong. This wonderful article from the EFF cleared up why such a distinction is incorrect [1]. My takeaway from the article is that the current laws with respect to liability are preferred to the alternative, which would incentivize companies to not moderate whatsoever out of a fear of liability due to "taking a stance." This lack of curation not only hurts the ability of companies to cater to consumers' sense of community, but also allows for hecklers' vetoes. Indeed, if a user spuriously threatens legal action over content by another user, why incur editorial liability by investigating, as opposed to indiscriminately removing the content? [1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-...

paxys 5y ago

What responsibility does a newspaper (or news channel/website) have? Is this any different from CNN, Fox News, WSJ, Breitbart publishing op-eds to push a certain point of view?

Consultant32452 5y ago
It means the publisher can be sued for libel and not just the random nobodies with no power.
- anticristi 5y ago
  Exactly! Newspapers are held to a higher standard for their content.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    For their content that they pay for, yes, but for 'letters to the editor' and the like that random people send in? My understanding is that no, they're not liable for those things. Well, not legally liable anyway, the court of public opinion is a different matter.
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      It's one thing when a publisher explicitly labels something as an opinion, such as the letter to the editor section of the paper. It's another thing entirely when Twitter or Facebook make false accusations about you in the process of banning you. Like let's say you had some ideas about where COVID originated and they banned you, slandering your good name in the process, by saying you were spreading falsehoods and conspiracy theories.
- anjbe 5y ago
  Can a newspaper be sued for letters to the editor, views that are clearly not those of the paper itself? Can a newspaper be sued for comments on its website?

smt88 5y ago

Yes, news algorithms are a form of journalistic editorial. With that premise, social media should even more clearly protected from government censorship (like this bill). Facebook is way too powerful and news algorthms are perhaps destroying democracy, but trampling on the First Amendment is not the solution.

jameshart 5y ago

Newspapers aren't obliged to carry unedited content, comment-free, for anyone who asks them to.

anticristi 5y ago
Social media isn't obliged to carry unedited content either. They just do it because it maximises profit.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >Social media isn't obliged to carry unedited content either. They will be in Florida though.

kvathupo 5y ago

Your comment is presumably being flagged for an unpopular take, but I think it's meaningful to have a conversation (I can't say my earlier quip provides anything of value). The first thing I did was google what's been chewed on in popular discourse: "publisher vs platform law." To my surprise, my understanding of the law was wrong. This wonderful article from the EFF cleared up why such a distinction is incorrect [1]. My takeaway from the article is that the current laws with respect to liability are preferred to the alternative, which would incentivize companies to not moderate whatsoever out of a fear of liability due to "taking a stance." This lack of curation not only hurts the ability of companies to cater to consumers' sense of community, but also allows for hecklers' vetoes. Indeed, if a user spuriously threatens legal action over content by another user, why incur editorial liability by investigating, as opposed to indiscriminately removing the content? [1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-...