2 ms·

Your website isn't a public square because you're the one publishing content to it. We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run,

Your website isn't a public square because you're the one publishing content to it. We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run, and I don't consider those three companies as publishing the content they host.

jimmydorry 4y ago
>We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run, and I don't consider those three companies as publishing the content they host. Don't you consider it publishing when they express editorial control over what topics are allowed on their platform, without transparency or accountability of what the forbidden topics are at any given point of time? They also modify the user generated content and add labels and "fact checks" which are prominently displayed.
ryandrake 4y ago
They are not public platforms, though. Not anymore public than a Starbucks. Just because "the public" can walk through a store's unlocked doors doesn't make the place public property. Same with social media. Just because "the public" can log into the platform's system doesn't make the place public. Social media does, in my view, publish the content they host. It's not like the telephone, where you establish a direct connection to your audience and the mediator gets out of the way. When you post something to social media, there are three separate steps that happen: 1. You send the content to the SM company. 2. The SM company does some kind of processing on the content. 3. The SM company publishes that content (or not) somewhere on their site. These things happen pretty much instantaneously, but they are still happening. Posting to Social Media is more like writing a Letter to the Editor of the newspaper. They receive the letter, decide whether to include it in the paper, then include it in the paper.
- inkblotuniverse 4y ago
  If twitter is a publisher, I should be able to sue them for what they publish, but I can't because of CDA 230. Are you in favor of repealing that law?
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    I’m personally not a fan of 230. I think if you exercise editorial control over the content of your site (and most web sites do) then you should be considered the publisher and endorser of that content. Can’t stomach that responsibility? Then don’t publish user-generated content. What you permit, you promote.
Aachen 4y ago
Well it has input fields, like a contact form and comments.

jimmydorry 4y ago

>We're discussing the public platforms that Facebook, Twitter and Google run, and I don't consider those three companies as publishing the content they host. Don't you consider it publishing when they express editorial control over what topics are allowed on their platform, without transparency or accountability of what the forbidden topics are at any given point of time? They also modify the user generated content and add labels and "fact checks" which are prominently displayed.

ryandrake 4y ago

They are not public platforms, though. Not anymore public than a Starbucks. Just because "the public" can walk through a store's unlocked doors doesn't make the place public property. Same with social media. Just because "the public" can log into the platform's system doesn't make the place public. Social media does, in my view, publish the content they host. It's not like the telephone, where you establish a direct connection to your audience and the mediator gets out of the way. When you post something to social media, there are three separate steps that happen: 1. You send the content to the SM company. 2. The SM company does some kind of processing on the content. 3. The SM company publishes that content (or not) somewhere on their site. These things happen pretty much instantaneously, but they are still happening. Posting to Social Media is more like writing a Letter to the Editor of the newspaper. They receive the letter, decide whether to include it in the paper, then include it in the paper.

inkblotuniverse 4y ago
If twitter is a publisher, I should be able to sue them for what they publish, but I can't because of CDA 230. Are you in favor of repealing that law?
- ryandrake 4y ago
  I’m personally not a fan of 230. I think if you exercise editorial control over the content of your site (and most web sites do) then you should be considered the publisher and endorser of that content. Can’t stomach that responsibility? Then don’t publish user-generated content. What you permit, you promote.

Aachen 4y ago

Well it has input fields, like a contact form and comments.