3 ms·

> Service providers specifically go out of their way to avoid being seen as publishers, as that would make them liable for the content they authorize. So when f

by SEMW 13y ago

> Service providers specifically go out of their way to avoid being seen as publishers, as that would make them liable for the content they authorize. So when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing. If you're going for the legal perspective, it's more complicated than that. Depending on jurisdiction, service provider immunity may not work after they're notified about the illegal content but decline to remove it. E.g. [1]. (Note that some causes of action may have more specific defences for operators of websites, e.g. [2]). But really, that isn't relevant here. No-one's suggested that the image here's illegal. This is just about facebook being able to decline to publish whatever it likes. > when facebook does take the extraordinary measure to remove content after the fact, they are actively censoring rather than not publishing I don't agree. As you yourself pointed out two sentences before that one, facebook don't editorially filter stuff before putting it up. So if they're notified that a thing they don't want to host has been put up, any action they take is always going to be "after the fact"! How can the right line to draw be between a provider that filters after publishing and one that filters before, such that the former is "censoring" but the latter is "not publishing"? Filtering after publishing (in response to user reports) is, for a website with a userbase the size of facebook's, just more efficient than doing it before. I don't see any moral difference between the two, just a practical one. (And FWIW, I think you way over-interpreted netrus' comment. All he did was point out the flaw in mixedbit's comparison). [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/regulation/19/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/regulation/19/m... [2] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/5

hackinthebochs 13y ago
I don't think the distinction between publisher and service provider is just a legal technicality. This goes into the heart of what facebook is. Facebook no more "publishes" content than a hosting provider publishes my blog that I created. They are the service provider, I am the publisher. The moral responsibility for content is on me and me alone. With that said, for a hosting provider to remove content after I published it is censorship. The distinction between censoring and refusing to publish is critical here. Facebook as a service provider would be censoring information rather than (retroactively) refusing to publish, as such this action should require a higher level of justification. All this said is in defense of their not censoring this image, as it does not meet the heightened level of justification required for censoring (from their perspective). >And FWIW, I think you way over-interpreted netrus' comment. All he did was point out the flaw in mixedbit's comparison After rereading the comment and its parent more carefully, you may be right.

by SEMW 13y ago

hackinthebochs 13y ago

I don't think the distinction between publisher and service provider is just a legal technicality. This goes into the heart of what facebook is. Facebook no more "publishes" content than a hosting provider publishes my blog that I created. They are the service provider, I am the publisher. The moral responsibility for content is on me and me alone. With that said, for a hosting provider to remove content after I published it is censorship. The distinction between censoring and refusing to publish is critical here. Facebook as a service provider would be censoring information rather than (retroactively) refusing to publish, as such this action should require a higher level of justification. All this said is in defense of their not censoring this image, as it does not meet the heightened level of justification required for censoring (from their perspective). >And FWIW, I think you way over-interpreted netrus' comment. All he did was point out the flaw in mixedbit's comparison After rereading the comment and its parent more carefully, you may be right.