3 ms·
I would want that, but that puts Google (and other companies) in the legal position of a publisher, which means that they're liable for "a bad thing".
by zinekeller 5y ago
I would want that, but that puts Google (and other companies) in the legal position of a publisher, which means that they're liable for "a bad thing".
- Nextgrid 5y agoMost websites and platforms moderate for abuse and aren't classified as publishers, I don't see why this would be any different here.
- zinekeller 5y agoI can't remember the precise reason, but if I remember correctly the reason is that because the poster is the originator in most sites including YouTube, while in Google's case it curates links instead without input from the general public. This is also the reason why Wikipedia still only officially operates in the US: the relatively freer publication rules as opposed to UK or Brazil for example shields them from a lot of lawsuits.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Manuel_D 5y agoThere exists no distinction between "publishers" and "platforms" as far as Section 230 protections from online liability goes. It's entirely decided by who produced the content: users are responsible for content that they upload, the sites hosting user-generated content are not. It doesn't matter if the site selectively promotes, or otherwise acts as a "publisher", so long as it's the user's content. https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230 https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230
- zinekeller 5y agoAh yes, US laws are the only laws applicable to Google. I should have prefaced that with "outside the United States": notably UK moves the bar to the middle, which will put Google in legal jeopardy (and libel cases!) there.