8 ms·

So let me get this straight. Facebook has absolute control to limit the spread of a story or news on their platform. Facebook has absolute control to outright

So let me get this straight. Facebook has absolute control to limit the spread of a story or news on their platform. Facebook has absolute control to outright block specific content based on an algorithm they control. Facebook can and will editorialize content posted on their platform. Facebook has absolute control over the content that users see. Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why Facebook is not a publisher? Why should Facebook continue to receive Section 230 protections? They are gatekeeper, publisher, and editor.

classified 4y ago
More like judge, jury, and executioner.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Hyperbole gets us nowhere
fredgrott 4y ago
see section 230 of a very specific US law-act as that law provided some outs for internet firms as far as being legally not declared a publisher if they volunteered to do specific things.
selfmodruntime 4y ago
section 230 is a wildly misunderstood law with many misconceptions. Contrary to popular belief, it doesn‘t make a clear distinction between platform and publisher.
- growse 4y ago
  Indeed. The word 'platform' doesn't appear in the entire section. The only time the word 'publisher' appears is: (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
  - someguydave 4y ago
    Yes but that appearance of “publisher” is critical - normal publishers can be sued for content under US law under certain circumstances.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    And that's the trillion dollar line. The reason for its justification is because as an owner of a digital platform, you can't get sued by Joe for defamation because somebody said something defaming about him on your platform. Publishers can, and do, get sued for defamation because they're responsible for what they publish. Now let's imagine a hypothetical extreme where OnlineSite ends up censoring any posts related to Joe, except those that defame him. It's quite clear that the site themselves are now actively defaming Joe, but they can use 230 to hide behind that line making them legally immune. In short, the more censorship a site engages in, the more they are effectively publishing their own views and those they defacto endorse.
    - goodluckchuck 4y ago
      The question is when is “information provided by another information content provider?” Suppose Facebook (corporate) generates content, sells it to an independent company, then leases it back and publishes it? Suppose Facebook uses millions of user-submitted pictures to train an AI, then publishes the resulting images? Are those “information provided by another information content provider?” Suppose Facebook copies and pastes user content, but claims to be the author and puts “written by Facebook and representative of the company’s official views.” Suppose they have samples that say A and B, and they choose to show A and not B? Suppose they like the gist of A, but it would be more compelling if they edited the image, changed the wording, and cut out other parts? Suppose they like A, but hires staffers to completely rewrite the story, like Disney redoing Cinderella?
      - somenameforme 4y ago
        The legalese defines this: "The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service." In all your examples except the 4th Facebook would clearly be the publisher/provider, and responsible. The 4th is where things get tricky largely because of yet another part of the law: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" Wrangling over the term "good faith" is going to be a lot trickier, especially when plausible deniability enters into the picture.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  We know it does protect publishers today. The point is we want it to be changed to only protect platforms.
projektfu 4y ago
The law protects small sites, too. It also makes users responsible for their own words, which is legitimate. Without 230, Facebook would become liable for defamation lawsuits unless it basically censored everything but the most bland content. You could "hack" the law by saying it only applies to companies with market cap less than 100bn. This is how some laws have been written in the past to specifically jeopardize particular companies. If you change a law like this to specifically attack one business, you're basically dumping the essence of the rule of law. Generally speaking, people are angry at Facebook's moderation decisions for political reasons. While I think they should abandon the platform, users would prefer that Facebook just enable their tribe to win. It's a silly situation. However, making Facebook liable for defamation as a publisher will just kill the platform entirely and that's not what these users actually want.
- philipov 4y ago
  How about if instead, we nationalize Facebook. The public square should not be owned by a private corporation. If that's not possible, yes: Facebook should be destroyed.
  - spydum 4y ago
    Government controlled media and censorship, what could possibly go wrong?
    - AzzieElbab 4y ago
      US Government is bound by first amendment, at least in theory
      - zimpenfish 4y ago
        Suppose USGOV takes over Facebook, then is it bound by 1A for all users? Or just those in US jurisdictions? You'd surely need it to be taken over by a supra-national body like the UN, given it has a supra-national user base.
arinlen 4y ago
> Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why Facebook is not a publisher? Facebook either disseminates posts from their users and/or links to sites operated by third-parties. Claiming that Facebook is a publisher makes as much sense as claiming hackernews is a publisher.
- bo1024 4y ago
  You seem to be thinking of author, not publisher. Lots of publishers publish material they didn’t write themselves, they’re still publishers when they do that.
  - philipov 4y ago
    What is the difference between being a publisher and being a distributor?
    - bo1024 4y ago
      I'm not sure in the digital world what the difference is. I would think of Akamai or Comcast as a distributor, maybe.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jasec57322 4y ago
As an offline-platform can make all sorts of bureacratic rules designed to censor those they don't like, this problem is far-far worse on a software-driven platform. Imagine facebook wants to censor anti-Biden, or anti-Trump, posts. They needn't design an algorithm that does explicitly that - that could be scrutinised under review. Instead: design an 'anti-spam' algorithm. Within this anti-spam algorithm, characteristic Y is flagged. Characteristic Y just happens to be heavily-correlated to anti-biden/anti-trump posts. A bit of filtering later (for 'anti-spam measures' of-course), and you have achieved your censorship without being too overt.
goodluckchuck 4y ago
Does Facebook claim to be protected by Section 230?
mcphage 4y ago
> Why should Facebook continue to receive Section 230 protections? Because Section 230 was written specifically to allow companies like Facebook to moderate their content. This is why it exists.
krapp 4y ago
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
justapassenger 4y ago
Hacker news can do (and does on occasions) all of those things as well. It’s called moderation. Is Hacker News a publisher?
- 0x445442 4y ago
  To my knowledge Hacker News does not publish misinformation that labels facts as misinformation. This is what Facebook, Twitter and YouTube do repeatedly. They’re publishers full stop.
  - justapassenger 4y ago
    HN moderation will [dead] the content. Different mechanics, but same effect - basically kills its distribution. Of course, there are valid questions about prevalence of that, and there’s likely a point where moderation becomes publishing. But if that point was mere existence of moderation, every single platform is a publisher.
kurupt213 4y ago
Even worse, the FBI is going around and silencing valid, independent reporting.

classified 4y ago

More like judge, jury, and executioner.

ethanbond 4y ago
Hyperbole gets us nowhere

fredgrott 4y ago

see section 230 of a very specific US law-act as that law provided some outs for internet firms as far as being legally not declared a publisher if they volunteered to do specific things.

selfmodruntime 4y ago

section 230 is a wildly misunderstood law with many misconceptions. Contrary to popular belief, it doesn‘t make a clear distinction between platform and publisher.

growse 4y ago
Indeed. The word 'platform' doesn't appear in the entire section. The only time the word 'publisher' appears is: (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- someguydave 4y ago
  Yes but that appearance of “publisher” is critical - normal publishers can be sued for content under US law under certain circumstances.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  And that's the trillion dollar line. The reason for its justification is because as an owner of a digital platform, you can't get sued by Joe for defamation because somebody said something defaming about him on your platform. Publishers can, and do, get sued for defamation because they're responsible for what they publish. Now let's imagine a hypothetical extreme where OnlineSite ends up censoring any posts related to Joe, except those that defame him. It's quite clear that the site themselves are now actively defaming Joe, but they can use 230 to hide behind that line making them legally immune. In short, the more censorship a site engages in, the more they are effectively publishing their own views and those they defacto endorse.
  - goodluckchuck 4y ago
    The question is when is “information provided by another information content provider?” Suppose Facebook (corporate) generates content, sells it to an independent company, then leases it back and publishes it? Suppose Facebook uses millions of user-submitted pictures to train an AI, then publishes the resulting images? Are those “information provided by another information content provider?” Suppose Facebook copies and pastes user content, but claims to be the author and puts “written by Facebook and representative of the company’s official views.” Suppose they have samples that say A and B, and they choose to show A and not B? Suppose they like the gist of A, but it would be more compelling if they edited the image, changed the wording, and cut out other parts? Suppose they like A, but hires staffers to completely rewrite the story, like Disney redoing Cinderella?
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      The legalese defines this: "The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service." In all your examples except the 4th Facebook would clearly be the publisher/provider, and responsible. The 4th is where things get tricky largely because of yet another part of the law: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" Wrangling over the term "good faith" is going to be a lot trickier, especially when plausible deniability enters into the picture.
josephcsible 4y ago
We know it does protect publishers today. The point is we want it to be changed to only protect platforms.

projektfu 4y ago

The law protects small sites, too. It also makes users responsible for their own words, which is legitimate. Without 230, Facebook would become liable for defamation lawsuits unless it basically censored everything but the most bland content. You could "hack" the law by saying it only applies to companies with market cap less than 100bn. This is how some laws have been written in the past to specifically jeopardize particular companies. If you change a law like this to specifically attack one business, you're basically dumping the essence of the rule of law. Generally speaking, people are angry at Facebook's moderation decisions for political reasons. While I think they should abandon the platform, users would prefer that Facebook just enable their tribe to win. It's a silly situation. However, making Facebook liable for defamation as a publisher will just kill the platform entirely and that's not what these users actually want.

philipov 4y ago
How about if instead, we nationalize Facebook. The public square should not be owned by a private corporation. If that's not possible, yes: Facebook should be destroyed.
- spydum 4y ago
  Government controlled media and censorship, what could possibly go wrong?
  - AzzieElbab 4y ago
    US Government is bound by first amendment, at least in theory
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      Suppose USGOV takes over Facebook, then is it bound by 1A for all users? Or just those in US jurisdictions? You'd surely need it to be taken over by a supra-national body like the UN, given it has a supra-national user base.

arinlen 4y ago

> Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why Facebook is not a publisher? Facebook either disseminates posts from their users and/or links to sites operated by third-parties. Claiming that Facebook is a publisher makes as much sense as claiming hackernews is a publisher.

bo1024 4y ago
You seem to be thinking of author, not publisher. Lots of publishers publish material they didn’t write themselves, they’re still publishers when they do that.
- philipov 4y ago
  What is the difference between being a publisher and being a distributor?
  - bo1024 4y ago
    I'm not sure in the digital world what the difference is. I would think of Akamai or Comcast as a distributor, maybe.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jasec57322 4y ago

As an offline-platform can make all sorts of bureacratic rules designed to censor those they don't like, this problem is far-far worse on a software-driven platform. Imagine facebook wants to censor anti-Biden, or anti-Trump, posts. They needn't design an algorithm that does explicitly that - that could be scrutinised under review. Instead: design an 'anti-spam' algorithm. Within this anti-spam algorithm, characteristic Y is flagged. Characteristic Y just happens to be heavily-correlated to anti-biden/anti-trump posts. A bit of filtering later (for 'anti-spam measures' of-course), and you have achieved your censorship without being too overt.

goodluckchuck 4y ago

Does Facebook claim to be protected by Section 230?

mcphage 4y ago

> Why should Facebook continue to receive Section 230 protections? Because Section 230 was written specifically to allow companies like Facebook to moderate their content. This is why it exists.

krapp 4y ago

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

justapassenger 4y ago

Hacker news can do (and does on occasions) all of those things as well. It’s called moderation. Is Hacker News a publisher?

0x445442 4y ago
To my knowledge Hacker News does not publish misinformation that labels facts as misinformation. This is what Facebook, Twitter and YouTube do repeatedly. They’re publishers full stop.
- justapassenger 4y ago
  HN moderation will [dead] the content. Different mechanics, but same effect - basically kills its distribution. Of course, there are valid questions about prevalence of that, and there’s likely a point where moderation becomes publishing. But if that point was mere existence of moderation, every single platform is a publisher.

kurupt213 4y ago

Even worse, the FBI is going around and silencing valid, independent reporting.