3 ms·

Its a slippery slope but not for the reasons you might first think. It's because this is turning a platform into an publisher. Soon more and more governments w

Its a slippery slope but not for the reasons you might first think. It's because this is turning a platform into an publisher. Soon more and more governments will be demanding publishers to enforce editorial standards. There seems to be no platforms these days that say they are just that. Even cloudfare, a peice of background infrastructure is happily editorialising certain things. With this idea, try not to get sucked in to the other argument. The issue is not that the list of certain things is going to increase, the issue is that the impartial nature of the internet is disappearing. There's a fair bit of evidence on some public hearings that the major players were given an ultimatum from both Republicans and Democrats to start being publishers, to relinquish control to the state, or be split up under anti monopoly and anti competition laws.

krapp 5y ago
>It's because this is turning a platform into an publisher. The "platform vs. publisher" dichotomy that crops up in these conversations is propaganda. Exercising editorial control over content does not create a distinction between one or the other, or convert one into the other. The distinction doesn't exist as a matter of law, legal right or obligation. Every web site and service, from tiny phpbb forums to FAANG silos, has always had the right to choose what does and does not appear on their site, and the discretion to "editorialize" as they see fit. And the internet has never been impartial. Individual sites can be run impartially, but that's a choice made by the site owners - not an obligation or legal duty. Other site owners have every right to run their site under other terms. If you don't like the terms under which a service is offered, you can use another service. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-...
- stale2002 5y ago
  I would recommend you read the actual law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the PUBLISHER or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." So yes. In the actual law, there is something called a publisher, and the law is distinguishing the website from being something as opposed to a publisher. So yes, there absolutely is a "distinction" being made here, regarding something that the law itself calls a publisher.
  - krapp 5y ago
    My claim was not that publishers didn't exist, but that the commonly presented distinction between platform and publisher - that a "platform" cannot moderate content beyond strict legality, or else they must be be considered a "publisher," lose Section 230 protection and take full legal responsibility for all content on their site - does not exist. Google's editorial policies "turning them from a platform into a publisher" is not a thing that actually happens.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > that a "platform" cannot moderate content beyond strict legality Nobody in this thread said anything about this being currently illegal. Instead the claim was about a platform acting more like a publisher, in practice. From a defacto perspective, things that people often call platforms, very much act much different than publishers, in practice. The person you were responding to is saying that this change, from the previous status quo of platforms acting neutrally, is a problem, but didn't bring up anything to do with the law. The fact that this stuff is legal, to become less neutral, is in fact precisely the issue! EX: the following statement "the issue is that the impartial nature of the internet is disappearing" Is a description of how things work, in practice, that has nothing to do with the law, and instead having to do with how these entities act in practice. > Google's editorial policies "turning them from a platform into a publisher" is not a thing that actually happens. Yes it is a thing that is happening. It just has nothing to do with the stuff you brought up. In the past, Google acted differently. It has nothing to do with it being legal to act differently. The actual, more interesting thing though, is how this will effect Future laws though. In reality, colloquial called platforms, acting more like colloquial called publishers very much could cause changes in future laws.
      - krapp 5y ago
        >Nobody in this thread said anything about this being currently illegal. And neither did I. My comment obviously referenced legality in the context of what sort of content "publishers" versus "platforms" are considered able to moderate - strictly legal content versus legal content which offends some otherwise arbitrary guidelines. This is the second time you've misconstrued my comment, so I'm going to find a better use of my time now. Good day.

krapp 5y ago

>It's because this is turning a platform into an publisher. The "platform vs. publisher" dichotomy that crops up in these conversations is propaganda. Exercising editorial control over content does not create a distinction between one or the other, or convert one into the other. The distinction doesn't exist as a matter of law, legal right or obligation. Every web site and service, from tiny phpbb forums to FAANG silos, has always had the right to choose what does and does not appear on their site, and the discretion to "editorialize" as they see fit. And the internet has never been impartial. Individual sites can be run impartially, but that's a choice made by the site owners - not an obligation or legal duty. Other site owners have every right to run their site under other terms. If you don't like the terms under which a service is offered, you can use another service. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-...

stale2002 5y ago
I would recommend you read the actual law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the PUBLISHER or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." So yes. In the actual law, there is something called a publisher, and the law is distinguishing the website from being something as opposed to a publisher. So yes, there absolutely is a "distinction" being made here, regarding something that the law itself calls a publisher.
- krapp 5y ago
  My claim was not that publishers didn't exist, but that the commonly presented distinction between platform and publisher - that a "platform" cannot moderate content beyond strict legality, or else they must be be considered a "publisher," lose Section 230 protection and take full legal responsibility for all content on their site - does not exist. Google's editorial policies "turning them from a platform into a publisher" is not a thing that actually happens.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > that a "platform" cannot moderate content beyond strict legality Nobody in this thread said anything about this being currently illegal. Instead the claim was about a platform acting more like a publisher, in practice. From a defacto perspective, things that people often call platforms, very much act much different than publishers, in practice. The person you were responding to is saying that this change, from the previous status quo of platforms acting neutrally, is a problem, but didn't bring up anything to do with the law. The fact that this stuff is legal, to become less neutral, is in fact precisely the issue! EX: the following statement "the issue is that the impartial nature of the internet is disappearing" Is a description of how things work, in practice, that has nothing to do with the law, and instead having to do with how these entities act in practice. > Google's editorial policies "turning them from a platform into a publisher" is not a thing that actually happens. Yes it is a thing that is happening. It just has nothing to do with the stuff you brought up. In the past, Google acted differently. It has nothing to do with it being legal to act differently. The actual, more interesting thing though, is how this will effect Future laws though. In reality, colloquial called platforms, acting more like colloquial called publishers very much could cause changes in future laws.
    - krapp 5y ago
      >Nobody in this thread said anything about this being currently illegal. And neither did I. My comment obviously referenced legality in the context of what sort of content "publishers" versus "platforms" are considered able to moderate - strictly legal content versus legal content which offends some otherwise arbitrary guidelines. This is the second time you've misconstrued my comment, so I'm going to find a better use of my time now. Good day.