4 ms·

A private media company deciding which media it publishes and doesn't publish. Can put it many ways.

by thisiswater 5y ago

thesis 5y ago
So they should be held liable for illegal things posted on their site right?
- flandish 5y ago
  Yes.
mariodiana 5y ago
So, then, YouTube is a publisher, not a platform?
- EL_Loco 5y ago
  Why does Youtube being a platform means they have to post everything? Are the anti-vaccine video sites forced to post pro-vaccine videos?
  - criddell 5y ago
    I only recently learned that this was a myth. The core of S230 is: 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. As long as YouTube isn't creating the content they are protected.
- criddell 5y ago
  They are both and the distinction is mostly meaningless.
- gitgud 5y ago
  Old terms partially describe a modern concept...
- danShumway 5y ago
  Publishers and platforms are not mutually exclusive concepts.
_Algernon_ 5y ago
YouTube is a publisher? Why aren't there editorial responsibilities put on them like with newspapers?
- root_axis 5y ago
  YouYube is a publisher, but it's not a publication. A newspaper hires employees that are paid by the company to produce a publication, YouTube is a platform that allows individuals to publish arbitrary video content, there is a very obvious difference between the two, playing on "publisher" semantics to imply that they should be held liable for uploads by random people makes no sense.
  - _Algernon_ 5y ago
    If you selectively censor views you're taking on an editorial function. With that comes the responsibilities of being a publisher. Or that's how it ought to be.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      I get that this is what you think would be ideal, but this isn't true. Having a content policy is not "editorializing". Using that logic Facebook is "editorializing" by not allowing nude photos on the site. This isn't what editorializing means, this is just abuse of semantics to shoe-horn the idea that YouTube should be held legally responsible for content produced by independent 3rd parties.
mach1ne 5y ago
*Allows to be published and doesn't allow to be published.
lithos 5y ago
Oh yeah, that’s exactly what a bunch of people are looking for. Declaring YouTube/Facebook/Twitter publishers.
- starfallg 5y ago
  It's a continuum though. Platforms and service providers can and do limit who can use their infrastructure, or how it is used. It's not as black and white as people like to make it.
tmaly 5y ago
how does this jive with Section 230?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- amalcon 5y ago
  It has nothing to do with section 230. The idea that section 230 prescribes different treatment of publishers is an oddly persistent myth.
  - gebruikersnaam 5y ago
    It's persistent because RW media keeps pushing it as gospel.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  §230 says that YouTube is not liable for any content that users post to its site, regardless of how much moderation of that content YouTube does or doesn't do. Everything after the comma in that sentence is actually the entire point of why §230 was passed; prior case law held that YouTube would be liable for all content if it did the barest amount of moderation.
  - tmaly 5y ago
    Is restricting content and banning content not a form of moderation?
    - jcranmer 5y ago
      Restricting or banning content would count as moderation as far as §230 is concerned.
thriftwy 5y ago
An effective market monopoly discriminates its customers by refusing some of them? That calls for a text-book anti-monopoly action.
crmd 5y ago
Not in the USA. [0] The Supreme Court, in Pruneyard v Robbins, expressly rejected the claim "that a private property owner has a First Amendment right not to be forced by the State to use his property as a forum for the speech of others." Turner v. FCC and Rumsfeld v. FAIR rejected similar claims. [0] https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and-treating-social-media-platforms-as-common-carriers https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and...
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Pruneyard is inapposite here. The facts in Pruneyard turn on two crucial elements: * The California state constitution granted a broader right than the US constitution, and the speech in question was required to be permitted under California, but not US, rules. * The speech in question was admitted by both parties to not reflect upon the shopping center's views, nor was the speech disruptive to its activities. Thus, freedom of association isn't going to kick in. That last part in particular is key. For social media platforms, it is DEFINITELY the case that the content they host is imputed onto their own views. Alternative sites like Parler or Gab are invariably referred to with a note that they host predominantly far-right content--these sites are known almost entirely by what they carry, not the principles the sites claim to espouse. Even for larger sites like YouTube or Facebook, the ability to find certain kinds of negative content on these sites periodically blows up into major media furors. A more appropriate precedent is Miami Herald v Tornillo, which held that a Florida state law requiring newspapers to publish candidate replies to articles was unconstitutional.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not highly distasteful.
DarkmSparks 5y ago
That's the same way, just because you use "private media company" instead of "global conglomerate" doesnt change anything. its just another example of "soft language" https://youtu.be/-m-zHjZ011I https://youtu.be/-m-zHjZ011I

A private media company deciding which media it publishes and doesn't publish. Can put it many ways.

thesis 5y ago

So they should be held liable for illegal things posted on their site right?

flandish 5y ago
Yes.

mariodiana 5y ago

So, then, YouTube is a publisher, not a platform?

EL_Loco 5y ago
Why does Youtube being a platform means they have to post everything? Are the anti-vaccine video sites forced to post pro-vaccine videos?
- criddell 5y ago
  I only recently learned that this was a myth. The core of S230 is: 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. As long as YouTube isn't creating the content they are protected.
criddell 5y ago
They are both and the distinction is mostly meaningless.
gitgud 5y ago
Old terms partially describe a modern concept...
danShumway 5y ago
Publishers and platforms are not mutually exclusive concepts.

_Algernon_ 5y ago

YouTube is a publisher? Why aren't there editorial responsibilities put on them like with newspapers?

root_axis 5y ago
YouYube is a publisher, but it's not a publication. A newspaper hires employees that are paid by the company to produce a publication, YouTube is a platform that allows individuals to publish arbitrary video content, there is a very obvious difference between the two, playing on "publisher" semantics to imply that they should be held liable for uploads by random people makes no sense.
- _Algernon_ 5y ago
  If you selectively censor views you're taking on an editorial function. With that comes the responsibilities of being a publisher. Or that's how it ought to be.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    I get that this is what you think would be ideal, but this isn't true. Having a content policy is not "editorializing". Using that logic Facebook is "editorializing" by not allowing nude photos on the site. This isn't what editorializing means, this is just abuse of semantics to shoe-horn the idea that YouTube should be held legally responsible for content produced by independent 3rd parties.

mach1ne 5y ago

*Allows to be published and doesn't allow to be published.

lithos 5y ago

Oh yeah, that’s exactly what a bunch of people are looking for. Declaring YouTube/Facebook/Twitter publishers.

starfallg 5y ago
It's a continuum though. Platforms and service providers can and do limit who can use their infrastructure, or how it is used. It's not as black and white as people like to make it.

tmaly 5y ago

how does this jive with Section 230?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
amalcon 5y ago
It has nothing to do with section 230. The idea that section 230 prescribes different treatment of publishers is an oddly persistent myth.
- gebruikersnaam 5y ago
  It's persistent because RW media keeps pushing it as gospel.
jcranmer 5y ago
§230 says that YouTube is not liable for any content that users post to its site, regardless of how much moderation of that content YouTube does or doesn't do. Everything after the comma in that sentence is actually the entire point of why §230 was passed; prior case law held that YouTube would be liable for all content if it did the barest amount of moderation.
- tmaly 5y ago
  Is restricting content and banning content not a form of moderation?
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    Restricting or banning content would count as moderation as far as §230 is concerned.

thriftwy 5y ago

An effective market monopoly discriminates its customers by refusing some of them? That calls for a text-book anti-monopoly action.

crmd 5y ago

Not in the USA. [0] The Supreme Court, in Pruneyard v Robbins, expressly rejected the claim "that a private property owner has a First Amendment right not to be forced by the State to use his property as a forum for the speech of others." Turner v. FCC and Rumsfeld v. FAIR rejected similar claims. [0] https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and-treating-social-media-platforms-as-common-carriers https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/09/the-first-amendment-and...

jcranmer 5y ago
Pruneyard is inapposite here. The facts in Pruneyard turn on two crucial elements: * The California state constitution granted a broader right than the US constitution, and the speech in question was required to be permitted under California, but not US, rules. * The speech in question was admitted by both parties to not reflect upon the shopping center's views, nor was the speech disruptive to its activities. Thus, freedom of association isn't going to kick in. That last part in particular is key. For social media platforms, it is DEFINITELY the case that the content they host is imputed onto their own views. Alternative sites like Parler or Gab are invariably referred to with a note that they host predominantly far-right content--these sites are known almost entirely by what they carry, not the principles the sites claim to espouse. Even for larger sites like YouTube or Facebook, the ability to find certain kinds of negative content on these sites periodically blows up into major media furors. A more appropriate precedent is Miami Herald v Tornillo, which held that a Florida state law requiring newspapers to publish candidate replies to articles was unconstitutional.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not highly distasteful.

DarkmSparks 5y ago

That's the same way, just because you use "private media company" instead of "global conglomerate" doesnt change anything. its just another example of "soft language" https://youtu.be/-m-zHjZ011I https://youtu.be/-m-zHjZ011I