5 ms·

Publishers are liable for any libel they publish while platforms are not, that’s the legal distinction. When Facebook chooses to editorialize their content like

Publishers are liable for any libel they publish while platforms are not, that’s the legal distinction. When Facebook chooses to editorialize their content like they did in this instance they forfeit the legal protections of the Communications Decency Act. The first Amendment limits the power of the federal government to provide liability protection for publishers.

nradov 4y ago
Bullshit. There is no such liability provision in the Communications Decency Act. You should read the actual text of the law instead of making things up.
- jscipione 4y ago
  "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" (47 U.S.C. § 230)
  - nradov 4y ago
    Yes that is part of the law, but it doesn't mean what you claimed. You're completely misinterpreting it. There is extensive case law in this area.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      So what would it mean if Facebook were treated as the "publisher or speaker" of information they... well, publish? This passage does something by preventing them from being so classified. Right?
      - nradov 4y ago
        That's a meaningless question because it's tangential to the Communications Decency Act. Censoring content or changing a social media feed algorithm isn't classified that way. You might not like the law but that's how it works based on the plain language of the statute and confirmed through extensive case law.
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        Asking about the effect of a passage in the Communications Decency Act is a "meaningless question" and is tangential to the Communications Decency Act?
        nobody9999 4y ago
        >Asking about the effect of a passage in the Communications Decency Act is a "meaningless question" and is tangential to the Communications Decency Act? Given the extensive case law[0] generated since the passage of the CDA, yes it is pretty meaningless. Because that case law clearly defines what those terms mean and they don't mean aggregators like Facebook. It's reasonable to question, given the moderation choices made by entities like Facebook, how much impact they may have on public discourse. However, the meaning of the text of the CDA, and especially Section C(1) has been clarified many, many times and doesn't mean what you think it means. Whether that's right or wrong/good or bad is a different question. But the question you asked[1], given the law and its application over the past 25 years or so, is pretty meaningless in the sense that it has been repeatedly answered (and that answer is 'no') over that quarter century. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32869002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32869002
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        You're saying the answer to: > This passage does something by preventing them from being so classified. Right? Is no, the passage doesn't do anything (anymore)? [EDIT] I think you think I think some stuff I don't. I don't even know what you're talking about when you claim it doesn't mean "what I think it means". You claimed the passage doesn't mean what another poster thinks it means, I asked what it does in fact mean, i.e. what would happen if the passage were absent, and then you told me that question was irrelevant (why?), and then this post, which also seems to be addressing some other person or something... but maybe is addressing what I actually asked? I can't tell. [EDIT AGAIN] Hell, the wikipedia article you cited even seems to back up the (other poster's) interpretation you were claiming was wrong. I am so confused.

nradov 4y ago

Bullshit. There is no such liability provision in the Communications Decency Act. You should read the actual text of the law instead of making things up.

jscipione 4y ago
"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" (47 U.S.C. § 230)
- nradov 4y ago
  Yes that is part of the law, but it doesn't mean what you claimed. You're completely misinterpreting it. There is extensive case law in this area.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    So what would it mean if Facebook were treated as the "publisher or speaker" of information they... well, publish? This passage does something by preventing them from being so classified. Right?
    - nradov 4y ago
      That's a meaningless question because it's tangential to the Communications Decency Act. Censoring content or changing a social media feed algorithm isn't classified that way. You might not like the law but that's how it works based on the plain language of the statute and confirmed through extensive case law.
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        Asking about the effect of a passage in the Communications Decency Act is a "meaningless question" and is tangential to the Communications Decency Act?
        nobody9999 4y ago
        >Asking about the effect of a passage in the Communications Decency Act is a "meaningless question" and is tangential to the Communications Decency Act? Given the extensive case law[0] generated since the passage of the CDA, yes it is pretty meaningless. Because that case law clearly defines what those terms mean and they don't mean aggregators like Facebook. It's reasonable to question, given the moderation choices made by entities like Facebook, how much impact they may have on public discourse. However, the meaning of the text of the CDA, and especially Section C(1) has been clarified many, many times and doesn't mean what you think it means. Whether that's right or wrong/good or bad is a different question. But the question you asked[1], given the law and its application over the past 25 years or so, is pretty meaningless in the sense that it has been repeatedly answered (and that answer is 'no') over that quarter century. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32869002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32869002
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        You're saying the answer to: > This passage does something by preventing them from being so classified. Right? Is no, the passage doesn't do anything (anymore)? [EDIT] I think you think I think some stuff I don't. I don't even know what you're talking about when you claim it doesn't mean "what I think it means". You claimed the passage doesn't mean what another poster thinks it means, I asked what it does in fact mean, i.e. what would happen if the passage were absent, and then you told me that question was irrelevant (why?), and then this post, which also seems to be addressing some other person or something... but maybe is addressing what I actually asked? I can't tell. [EDIT AGAIN] Hell, the wikipedia article you cited even seems to back up the (other poster's) interpretation you were claiming was wrong. I am so confused.