2 ms·

Platforms have several advantages from being platforms, like not being legally responsible for what people are posting there (within limits). It feels right to

Platforms have several advantages from being platforms, like not being legally responsible for what people are posting there (within limits). It feels right to have obligations as well. You can't say both "I'm not responsible for their political viewpoints" and "I'm free to select the political viewpoints of my members". A church is not a platform.

Barrin92 5y ago
> You can't say both "I'm not responsible for their political viewpoints" and "I'm free to select the political viewpoints of my members". not only can you say that, it's pretty much a requirement for public platforms to exist on the internet. You are on Hackernews right now. If Hackernews was legally liable for the content users create, it would cease to exist. Likewise, if not being liable meant Hackernews could not moderate the site as they see fit, it would go to hell. You should be able to make a Christian platform, a left wing platform, a conservative platform, moderate accordingly, and still be able to operate it without facing legal threats that would immediately render operating it impossible. The reason platforms have both rights is why we have a public internet.
dllthomas 5y ago
> A church is not a platform. But a pulpit is a platform.