4 ms·
Wow, this is a great point that I hadn't previously considered. These platforms can even conceivably get away with content removal more easily as ToS violations
by wpasc 5y ago
Wow, this is a great point that I hadn't previously considered. These platforms can even conceivably get away with content removal more easily as ToS violations without stepping over the line to become publishers. But if one considers a fact-check as its own content, then that may become a defining point in a future ruling or examination of 230.
I imagine there's a great case to be made that fact checks are platform sponsored content (if a fact check is viewed as an analysis of the content along with verdict [ie. "Misleading"], easy to view that similarly to the plethora of analysis content [reviews, summaries, etc] populating all social media platforms). I'm fascinated to see how this will play out.
- cronix 5y ago> But if one considers a fact-check as its own content, then that may become a defining point in a future ruling or examination of 230 I believe that is why they, and other platforms in a similar position, use 3rd party "fact checkers." To try to legally skirt that. "It's not our content/fact check, it's from this unbiased third party. Don't look at us." They seem to have borrowed "plausible deniability" from some 3 letter agencies since it legally works well for them. > To fight the spread of misinformation and provide people with more reliable information, Facebook partners with independent third-party fact-checkers that are certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Since we do not believe that a private company like Facebook should be the arbiters of truth, we rely on fact-checkers to identify, review and rate potential misinformation across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Their work enables us to take action and reduce the spread of problematic content across our apps. https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-party-fact-checking/how-it-works https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-pa...
- ch4s3 5y agoThere is no platform/publisher distinction in the law. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 [1] was originally meant to be a carve out to allow websites to host comment sections without being considered the "speaker" of those comments and thereby being subjected to the speech restrictions in the rest of the law. The rest of the law has since been struck down. When people are mad about 230, what they're really mad about is the 1st Amendment. Is Facebook the speaker when it applies a fact check? Maybe but it doesn't matter much with respect to 230 offers minimal protection beyond the 1st Amendment. And as others have stated, the bar for libel against public figures is VERY high in the US. [1]https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
- pjc50 5y ago> When people are mad about 230, what they're really mad about is the 1st Amendment. Exactly. Facebook are exercising their 1A rights to call him misleading. This is not complicated.
- ch4s3 5y agoYeah the whole 230 discussions is at best naive and at worst a cynical attack on 1A rights by no nothing dead enders and authoritarian leftists. The same coalition that brought you the drug war, the satanic panic, and the global war on terror.
- kelnos 5y agoUh, both the War on Drugs and War on Terror were started by Republican presidents (Satanic Panic is a little harder to unravel), with broad support (at the time, anyway) on both sides of the aisle. If you're going to spout nonsense, at least pick examples consistent with your nonsense.
- betwixthewires 5y agoI just want to point out that the person you're responding to did not refer to this coalition they're describing as belonging to any political party.