6 ms·

Is there precedent for the government requiring traditional newspapers to submit reports like this explaining their editorial processes and priorities?

EdSchouten 3y ago
Regardless of what the answer to your question is, X is not a newspaper.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. Unless a double standard is being applied "because computers", which is what I am teasing out. The courts are better about upholding the First Amendment when there is ink being put on paper, because that's something which is well established and understood. As soon as computers get involved, people get this idea that old rules no longer apply "because computers". This is why the book PGP Source Code and Internals was published; because ink on paper makes the matter clear cut.
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. This sort of pointless truism means nothing at all. The crux of the matter boils down to the common carrier status, and whether companies can be held liable for the content being handled through their service. If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that.
    - function_seven 3y ago
      > If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that. My apologies if I am misinterpreting your statement here, but this feels like a misunderstanding of section 230. 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...
  - Volundr 3y ago
    The difference isn't "because computers", the difference is that Twitter claims it has no editorial control over the content published on its platform while a newspaper claims complete editorial control. That's a huge functional difference.
  - wgjordan 3y ago
    The so-called 'double standard' in AB-587 (defining 'social media platform') is entirely consistent with the existing federal 'double standard' set up a quarter-century ago by Section 230, which makes providers of 'interactive computer services' immunity from liability for content moderation decisions. This bill can be seen as oversight layered on top of those existing content-moderation liability protections. If you want to tilt at 'because computers' windmills, Section 230 is the real target.
the_optimist 3y ago
OP analysis is specious at best. This is why you shouldn’t ask non-lawyers for legal opinions. Lol at the aggressive partisan downvoting. Sorry you feel compelled to such anti-Musk right-think, either sock accounts or a display of hackery. Either way, very stoopid.
- kergonath 3y ago
  I was going to write that I hope Musk does not get any advice from HN. But then he gets it from Twitter so who knows…
InitialLastName 3y ago
Do traditional newspapers claim to be legally exempt from liability for the content they publish/don't publish?
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Does that mean no?
  - maxwell 3y ago
    Are you asserting the network formerly known as Twitter is a publisher (in the legal/technical sense)?
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      I am asking if there is any legal precedent for the government forcing any traditional publisher to explain what legal speech they choose or refuse to publish. If a newspaper decided they want to publish a bunch of letters sent to them by the public (as they do), is there precedent for the government compelling the newspaper to explain the basis by which they choose which letters to publish or forbid? I think this is a case of "it's different because computers", and this wouldn't fly if it were a traditional publisher putting ink on paper.
      - rewmie 3y ago
        > I am asking if there is any legal precedent for the government forcing any traditional publisher to explain what legal speech they choose or refuse to publish. Either you're failing to understand the question, or you're trying to be disingenuous about it. Newspapers editorialize their content. Elon Musk's Twitter is not, and is claiming to have no control over what content third parties publish throught their service. However, Elon Musk's Twitter is also manipulating the contents that third parties publish through their service by means of moderation/censorship and boosting. Given they claim they hold no editorial control over what goes through their pipes but still manipulate the content, they have a responsibility to demonstrate that they are not liable for that content by specifying exactly which rules they enforce and how they enforce them. Do you understand the difference between assuming responsibility over the content, and claiming that they are not liable for the content they distribute because they don't pick and choose what goes through their pipes?
freejazz 3y ago
There's precedent for the government to force various different types of organizations to disclose information in the public interest. Newspapers don't partake in any of the activities that this disclosure rule addresses, so I don't think a court will find it to be a relevant comparison, because it has nothing to do with the kinds of activities the government is trying to regulate.
- whartung 3y ago
  I don't know about that. Newspapers enforce editorial policy over their opinion columns and things like which letters to publish. This law sounds like, if it actually applied to them, which is doesn't, they would need to submit a report about why they didn't allow "Letter from Aunt Ethel" to be published. What criteria did they use in not allowing it to be published, etc. Why did they publish "Letter from Uncle Frank" instead. Simply, they need to enumerate their internal editorial policies. And I can see it argued that editorial policies are political speech. We all know magazines or publications and websites that represent a political philosophy, what articles they publish, how the articles are worded, etc. That's everywhere. "Why didn't you allow XXX to be published? Because we don't like the point of view of XXX!" And part of having a political philosophy and the speech rights around it is that you should be allowed, should be "free" that is, to not say anything at all! When you start getting "have you stopped beating your wife" questions, you should be allowed to say "no comment". Compelled speech is not freedom of speech. Publishing in detail your moderation policies and activities is arguably compelled release of a political philosophy. Now, does a Corporation have such a right? Today, it's hard to say. If a Corporation apparently has the right to impact elections (economically) that implies it has a political position and perhaps that the detailing of that position (or not) should be a protected. IANAL. The big problem here is this shouldn't be an issue. How many websites have a privacy policy of "We're going to gather everything we can from you, and sell it to the highest bidder. If we could get your DNA, we'd sell that too." That should be a perfectly viable "privacy policy". If X has to publish "yes, the exact details" of how they moderate extreme speech, maybe they'll just publish "we don't" and leave it at that. Which, of course, brings even more, indirect, scrutiny. In the end, there's no good answer to this question. Every answer any service would publish, is the "wrong answer".
empath-nirvana 3y ago
Sure, let's treat Twitter like a traditional newspaper, which would mean they'd be legally liable for all the content they "publish". I think given that they're monetizing extremist content, that'd be a really smart legal play for them.

EdSchouten 3y ago

Regardless of what the answer to your question is, X is not a newspaper.

mcpackieh 3y ago
In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. Unless a double standard is being applied "because computers", which is what I am teasing out. The courts are better about upholding the First Amendment when there is ink being put on paper, because that's something which is well established and understood. As soon as computers get involved, people get this idea that old rules no longer apply "because computers". This is why the book PGP Source Code and Internals was published; because ink on paper makes the matter clear cut.
- rewmie 3y ago
  > In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. This sort of pointless truism means nothing at all. The crux of the matter boils down to the common carrier status, and whether companies can be held liable for the content being handled through their service. If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that.
  - function_seven 3y ago
    > If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that. My apologies if I am misinterpreting your statement here, but this feels like a misunderstanding of section 230. 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...
- Volundr 3y ago
  The difference isn't "because computers", the difference is that Twitter claims it has no editorial control over the content published on its platform while a newspaper claims complete editorial control. That's a huge functional difference.
- wgjordan 3y ago
  The so-called 'double standard' in AB-587 (defining 'social media platform') is entirely consistent with the existing federal 'double standard' set up a quarter-century ago by Section 230, which makes providers of 'interactive computer services' immunity from liability for content moderation decisions. This bill can be seen as oversight layered on top of those existing content-moderation liability protections. If you want to tilt at 'because computers' windmills, Section 230 is the real target.

the_optimist 3y ago

OP analysis is specious at best. This is why you shouldn’t ask non-lawyers for legal opinions. Lol at the aggressive partisan downvoting. Sorry you feel compelled to such anti-Musk right-think, either sock accounts or a display of hackery. Either way, very stoopid.

kergonath 3y ago
I was going to write that I hope Musk does not get any advice from HN. But then he gets it from Twitter so who knows…

InitialLastName 3y ago

Do traditional newspapers claim to be legally exempt from liability for the content they publish/don't publish?

mcpackieh 3y ago
Does that mean no?
- maxwell 3y ago
  Are you asserting the network formerly known as Twitter is a publisher (in the legal/technical sense)?
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    I am asking if there is any legal precedent for the government forcing any traditional publisher to explain what legal speech they choose or refuse to publish. If a newspaper decided they want to publish a bunch of letters sent to them by the public (as they do), is there precedent for the government compelling the newspaper to explain the basis by which they choose which letters to publish or forbid? I think this is a case of "it's different because computers", and this wouldn't fly if it were a traditional publisher putting ink on paper.
    - rewmie 3y ago
      > I am asking if there is any legal precedent for the government forcing any traditional publisher to explain what legal speech they choose or refuse to publish. Either you're failing to understand the question, or you're trying to be disingenuous about it. Newspapers editorialize their content. Elon Musk's Twitter is not, and is claiming to have no control over what content third parties publish throught their service. However, Elon Musk's Twitter is also manipulating the contents that third parties publish through their service by means of moderation/censorship and boosting. Given they claim they hold no editorial control over what goes through their pipes but still manipulate the content, they have a responsibility to demonstrate that they are not liable for that content by specifying exactly which rules they enforce and how they enforce them. Do you understand the difference between assuming responsibility over the content, and claiming that they are not liable for the content they distribute because they don't pick and choose what goes through their pipes?

freejazz 3y ago

There's precedent for the government to force various different types of organizations to disclose information in the public interest. Newspapers don't partake in any of the activities that this disclosure rule addresses, so I don't think a court will find it to be a relevant comparison, because it has nothing to do with the kinds of activities the government is trying to regulate.

whartung 3y ago
I don't know about that. Newspapers enforce editorial policy over their opinion columns and things like which letters to publish. This law sounds like, if it actually applied to them, which is doesn't, they would need to submit a report about why they didn't allow "Letter from Aunt Ethel" to be published. What criteria did they use in not allowing it to be published, etc. Why did they publish "Letter from Uncle Frank" instead. Simply, they need to enumerate their internal editorial policies. And I can see it argued that editorial policies are political speech. We all know magazines or publications and websites that represent a political philosophy, what articles they publish, how the articles are worded, etc. That's everywhere. "Why didn't you allow XXX to be published? Because we don't like the point of view of XXX!" And part of having a political philosophy and the speech rights around it is that you should be allowed, should be "free" that is, to not say anything at all! When you start getting "have you stopped beating your wife" questions, you should be allowed to say "no comment". Compelled speech is not freedom of speech. Publishing in detail your moderation policies and activities is arguably compelled release of a political philosophy. Now, does a Corporation have such a right? Today, it's hard to say. If a Corporation apparently has the right to impact elections (economically) that implies it has a political position and perhaps that the detailing of that position (or not) should be a protected. IANAL. The big problem here is this shouldn't be an issue. How many websites have a privacy policy of "We're going to gather everything we can from you, and sell it to the highest bidder. If we could get your DNA, we'd sell that too." That should be a perfectly viable "privacy policy". If X has to publish "yes, the exact details" of how they moderate extreme speech, maybe they'll just publish "we don't" and leave it at that. Which, of course, brings even more, indirect, scrutiny. In the end, there's no good answer to this question. Every answer any service would publish, is the "wrong answer".

empath-nirvana 3y ago

Sure, let's treat Twitter like a traditional newspaper, which would mean they'd be legally liable for all the content they "publish". I think given that they're monetizing extremist content, that'd be a really smart legal play for them.