3 ms·

This "platform vs publisher" thing is a myth based on a misunderstand of how Section 230 works. The law doesn't actually distinguish between the two.

by eli 5y ago

pindab0ter 5y ago
It’s an international issue that not only U.S. law applies to. And even if it did, it’s still worth discussing.
infamouscow 5y ago
The law is written by people, so it frankly doesn't matter what it says currently because it can (and probably will) change.
- eli 5y ago
  I mean, sure, but parent comment was implying platforms have special legal protections currently, which isn’t really the case.
handrous 5y ago
It distinguishes between something and a publisher, in that it says whatever-you-want-to-call-that-something can't be treated as the publisher (it uses that word) of information it's distributing.
- eli 5y ago
  It distinguishes between the person who uploaded the video and YouTube hosting the video. How YouTube exerts editorial control to promote some videos or delete others is not relevant. This is a good rule. HN couldn’t possibly exist without it. There’s been a lot of really bad information on 230 from people who ought to know better.
  - handrous 5y ago
    I got mine from the text of the law. It does what you say, and also what I say. I definitely doesn't not distinguish between a publisher and a service provider (host, platform, whatever). It does so explicitly.
dane-pgp 5y ago
Perhaps the most relevant distinction is between "moderation that the users have a choice about" versus "moderation that the users don't have a choice about". If a site wants to hide all posts/videos that promote some unpopular political belief, or use offensive words, then implementing that censorship as the default user experience is perfectly acceptable, as long as users can choose to opt out of that censorship. There might be multiple reasons why a given post/video could be censored, and perhaps there is a small burden on sites to tag every single reason rather than mark it for censorship at the first excuse, but I think that a lot of the tagging work could be made the responsibility of the user who uploaded it. Such a system would hopefully make moot the slightly disingenuous argument that "If sites can't ban political opinions I don't like then they also won't be able to ban spam". Obviously sites would be allowed to put neutral resource limits on users, to prevent DoS attacks.

This "platform vs publisher" thing is a myth based on a misunderstand of how Section 230 works. The law doesn't actually distinguish between the two.

by eli 5y ago

This "platform vs publisher" thing is a myth based on a misunderstand of how Section 230 works. The law doesn't actually distinguish between the two.

pindab0ter 5y ago

It’s an international issue that not only U.S. law applies to. And even if it did, it’s still worth discussing.

infamouscow 5y ago

The law is written by people, so it frankly doesn't matter what it says currently because it can (and probably will) change.

eli 5y ago
I mean, sure, but parent comment was implying platforms have special legal protections currently, which isn’t really the case.

handrous 5y ago

It distinguishes between something and a publisher, in that it says whatever-you-want-to-call-that-something can't be treated as the publisher (it uses that word) of information it's distributing.

eli 5y ago
It distinguishes between the person who uploaded the video and YouTube hosting the video. How YouTube exerts editorial control to promote some videos or delete others is not relevant. This is a good rule. HN couldn’t possibly exist without it. There’s been a lot of really bad information on 230 from people who ought to know better.
- handrous 5y ago
  I got mine from the text of the law. It does what you say, and also what I say. I definitely doesn't not distinguish between a publisher and a service provider (host, platform, whatever). It does so explicitly.

dane-pgp 5y ago

Perhaps the most relevant distinction is between "moderation that the users have a choice about" versus "moderation that the users don't have a choice about". If a site wants to hide all posts/videos that promote some unpopular political belief, or use offensive words, then implementing that censorship as the default user experience is perfectly acceptable, as long as users can choose to opt out of that censorship. There might be multiple reasons why a given post/video could be censored, and perhaps there is a small burden on sites to tag every single reason rather than mark it for censorship at the first excuse, but I think that a lot of the tagging work could be made the responsibility of the user who uploaded it. Such a system would hopefully make moot the slightly disingenuous argument that "If sites can't ban political opinions I don't like then they also won't be able to ban spam". Obviously sites would be allowed to put neutral resource limits on users, to prevent DoS attacks.