4 ms·

If they’re claiming the First Amendment, they’re saying they’re not just a passive facilitator of communication but communicating themselves, which seems to val

If they’re claiming the First Amendment, they’re saying they’re not just a passive facilitator of communication but communicating themselves, which seems to validate it as a state propaganda arm.

walthamstow 2y ago
Wouldn't that position would also invalidate section 230 protections?
- schoen 2y ago
  There's no such thing as a loss of section 230 protections due to editorial bias. 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... (Sorry if the title of that article seems hostile, since I assume you were asking a genuine question, so you're not actually "wrong" in any sense!)
  - walthamstow 2y ago
    Thanks. It's fair enough, I'm not even from the US. Just so I know, which one of the bold-font misnomers in the article have I just repeated?
    - schoen 2y ago
      It's potentially adjacent to these issues: > If you said “Once a company like that starts moderating content, it’s no longer a platform, but a publisher” > If you said “A site that has political bias is not neutral, and thus loses its Section 230 protections” > If you said “Section 230 was designed to encourage websites to be neutral common carriers” Basically, section 230 was not designed to ban sites from having or exercising their own editorial judgment, or to require them to be passive in other ways. In a sense, its purpose was actually the opposite of that: to allow sites to make editorial judgments about content without getting sued for the content that they did or didn't choose to block.
schoen 2y ago
Maybe if they're asserting their own first amendment rights, although I doubt anyone would question the BBC's free expression interests in sharing its broadcasting with Americans (or Chinese or Iranians), or Americans' first amendment interest in choosing to access that programming, even though the BBC's editorial line isn't completely free of political influence from the British government. I thought their statement was that they help Americans exercise their first amendment rights in communicating with one another, which seems obviously true. Much like HN is doing right now, for example!

walthamstow 2y ago

Wouldn't that position would also invalidate section 230 protections?

schoen 2y ago
There's no such thing as a loss of section 230 protections due to editorial bias. 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... (Sorry if the title of that article seems hostile, since I assume you were asking a genuine question, so you're not actually "wrong" in any sense!)
- walthamstow 2y ago
  Thanks. It's fair enough, I'm not even from the US. Just so I know, which one of the bold-font misnomers in the article have I just repeated?
  - schoen 2y ago
    It's potentially adjacent to these issues: > If you said “Once a company like that starts moderating content, it’s no longer a platform, but a publisher” > If you said “A site that has political bias is not neutral, and thus loses its Section 230 protections” > If you said “Section 230 was designed to encourage websites to be neutral common carriers” Basically, section 230 was not designed to ban sites from having or exercising their own editorial judgment, or to require them to be passive in other ways. In a sense, its purpose was actually the opposite of that: to allow sites to make editorial judgments about content without getting sued for the content that they did or didn't choose to block.

schoen 2y ago

Maybe if they're asserting their own first amendment rights, although I doubt anyone would question the BBC's free expression interests in sharing its broadcasting with Americans (or Chinese or Iranians), or Americans' first amendment interest in choosing to access that programming, even though the BBC's editorial line isn't completely free of political influence from the British government. I thought their statement was that they help Americans exercise their first amendment rights in communicating with one another, which seems obviously true. Much like HN is doing right now, for example!