4 ms·

>Contrary to your perspective, why should a business be forced to carry speech it doesn't agree with? A publisher isn't forced. They choose the speech they lik

>Contrary to your perspective, why should a business be forced to carry speech it doesn't agree with? A publisher isn't forced. They choose the speech they like and censor what they dont like. They are liable for what they say. So when CNN for example published lies about that maga kid... maga kid got a nice payout from them. A platform though isn't a publisher and isn't liable for content; they get this liability protection by agreeing they cannot censor speech. The only allowed censorship is over reasonable good faith efforts. When twitter had extreme examples of lies about maga kid, he cants sue twitter. If these platforms could censor speech, they could operate exactly like a publisher but without liability? That's not how it works. What a disaster if you made publishers not liable by pretending to be platforms. So yes, you must force platforms to accept all speech with very limited good faith moderation.

nradov 4y ago
That is a common misconception. At least under US federal law, there is nothing special about a platform. There is no distinction between a "platform" and a "publisher".
- anthony_d 4y ago
  I'm not sure how to interpret that. What do you mean by "platform"? I would have thought the normal use of "platform" would be similar to "interactive computer service" and Section 230 is very explicit: "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" In essence the point of section 230 is to allow social media platforms to provide content while not being considered the publisher. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
  - nradov 4y ago
    The normal use of a term is legally irrelevant. Section 230 applies equally to all online services, regardless of whether they are social media platforms or not. The law dates back to 1996 so obviously the point of the law wasn't specific to social media. Again there is no distinction between "platform" and "publisher". Go read the actual law.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      > Again there is no distinction between "platform" and "publisher". Not quite right. Section 230 says that online services are not considered publishers when they provide services that allow other people to publish information online (ie, when they act like a platform, though the law doesn't use this term). However, they are considered publishers of content they create themselves. Thus the distinction between publisher and platform is who creates the content. 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.
    - anthony_d 4y ago
      Of course normal usage doesn't matter. But do you have a legal definition of the word "platform"? If you don't have a legal definition, you're just spewing words. There is a legal distinction between a "computer system" that includes any normal usage of platform and a publisher. That's what the actual law says. Section 230 is surprisingly legible if you haven't read it yet. Do you remember 1996? There were a lot of systems then that would absolutely qualify as social media today, even if the term wasn't used then. Those things are what section 230 addresses. You seem to be making some sort of pedantic strawman argument and I can't tell what you're really trying to convey. Instead of phrasing it as a negative, is there something you're trying to positively affirm?
      - nradov 4y ago
        The law doesn't use the term "platform" so your point is moot.
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >That is a common misconceptions. At least under US federal law, there is nothing special about a platform. There is no distinction between a "platform" and a "publisher". Ok so how do you differentiate the liability protection Twitter has and CNN doesn't? Also why do you believe Judge William Orrick of San Francisco is wrong? There is literally case law confirming the distinction between platform and publisher. Note, this is the problem with the 'disinformation governance board'.
  - nradov 4y ago
    The liability protection in Section 230 relates to user generated content. CNN formerly allowed such content on their web site in the form of user comments on news stories, but they removed that feature in about 2014 because it wasn't profitable. Which specific case law are you referring to? Please provide an actual citation because I don't think anything in my comment contradicted an opinion by Judge Orrick.

nradov 4y ago

That is a common misconception. At least under US federal law, there is nothing special about a platform. There is no distinction between a "platform" and a "publisher".

anthony_d 4y ago
I'm not sure how to interpret that. What do you mean by "platform"? I would have thought the normal use of "platform" would be similar to "interactive computer service" and Section 230 is very explicit: "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" In essence the point of section 230 is to allow social media platforms to provide content while not being considered the publisher. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- nradov 4y ago
  The normal use of a term is legally irrelevant. Section 230 applies equally to all online services, regardless of whether they are social media platforms or not. The law dates back to 1996 so obviously the point of the law wasn't specific to social media. Again there is no distinction between "platform" and "publisher". Go read the actual law.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    > Again there is no distinction between "platform" and "publisher". Not quite right. Section 230 says that online services are not considered publishers when they provide services that allow other people to publish information online (ie, when they act like a platform, though the law doesn't use this term). However, they are considered publishers of content they create themselves. Thus the distinction between publisher and platform is who creates the content. 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.
  - anthony_d 4y ago
    Of course normal usage doesn't matter. But do you have a legal definition of the word "platform"? If you don't have a legal definition, you're just spewing words. There is a legal distinction between a "computer system" that includes any normal usage of platform and a publisher. That's what the actual law says. Section 230 is surprisingly legible if you haven't read it yet. Do you remember 1996? There were a lot of systems then that would absolutely qualify as social media today, even if the term wasn't used then. Those things are what section 230 addresses. You seem to be making some sort of pedantic strawman argument and I can't tell what you're really trying to convey. Instead of phrasing it as a negative, is there something you're trying to positively affirm?
    - nradov 4y ago
      The law doesn't use the term "platform" so your point is moot.
incomingpain 4y ago
>That is a common misconceptions. At least under US federal law, there is nothing special about a platform. There is no distinction between a "platform" and a "publisher". Ok so how do you differentiate the liability protection Twitter has and CNN doesn't? Also why do you believe Judge William Orrick of San Francisco is wrong? There is literally case law confirming the distinction between platform and publisher. Note, this is the problem with the 'disinformation governance board'.
- nradov 4y ago
  The liability protection in Section 230 relates to user generated content. CNN formerly allowed such content on their web site in the form of user comments on news stories, but they removed that feature in about 2014 because it wasn't profitable. Which specific case law are you referring to? Please provide an actual citation because I don't think anything in my comment contradicted an opinion by Judge Orrick.