4 ms·

Also seems reasonable to me to want to do some due diligence before it reaches number 1 and gets pushed to everyone by your own algorithms. Traditional journali

Also seems reasonable to me to want to do some due diligence before it reaches number 1 and gets pushed to everyone by your own algorithms. Traditional journalism used to require some level of due diligence. They waited to know if it could be real before allowing it to spread. At least as I understood, the algorithm tweak only lasted 1 week and then was reversed once the story sounded more probable.

tekknik 4y ago
The different here is FB is not a publisher. If they were, then they’d have many more laws to follow with user generated content. FB is a distributor of user generated content. That’s all. There should be no decision making at all on their part.
- didibus 4y ago
  That seems like a technicality, like the laws and the categorization of FB by the law doesn't change my argument. No matter what you want to call it, I think a little bit of due diligence seems sensible. On that tengent, you did get me curious though, why isn't FB considered a publisher by law? And why would publishers be upholhded to more strict rules? I mean, Facebook hosts the content, delivers it to people, makes money of it, and it even markets the content through recommendations and tool assisted sharing.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Because facebook doesn’t generate the content. You must generate content in order to be a publisher. And once labeled as a publisher, you become liable for your speech. Generally those platforms allowing the posting of user generated content do not want to be liable for the speech, so they try their hardest to not be labeled as a publisher. This article explains in more detail the differences: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-§-230-and-the-publisher-distributor-platform-distinction/ https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-§-230-and-the-...

4 ms·

Also seems reasonable to me to want to do some due diligence before it reaches number 1 and gets pushed to everyone by your own algorithms. Traditional journali

by didibus 4y ago

tekknik 4y ago
The different here is FB is not a publisher. If they were, then they’d have many more laws to follow with user generated content. FB is a distributor of user generated content. That’s all. There should be no decision making at all on their part.
- didibus 4y ago
  That seems like a technicality, like the laws and the categorization of FB by the law doesn't change my argument. No matter what you want to call it, I think a little bit of due diligence seems sensible. On that tengent, you did get me curious though, why isn't FB considered a publisher by law? And why would publishers be upholhded to more strict rules? I mean, Facebook hosts the content, delivers it to people, makes money of it, and it even markets the content through recommendations and tool assisted sharing.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Because facebook doesn’t generate the content. You must generate content in order to be a publisher. And once labeled as a publisher, you become liable for your speech. Generally those platforms allowing the posting of user generated content do not want to be liable for the speech, so they try their hardest to not be labeled as a publisher. This article explains in more detail the differences: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-§-230-and-the-publisher-distributor-platform-distinction/ https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-§-230-and-the-...