NationStates

The "Publisher or platform?" argument has been lurking in the background for a while now. Trump recently signed an executive order affirming that social media that engages in curating political comments through moderation, they are a publisher, not a platform.

This renders them liable for all speech that occurs on their site.
(So, on facebook, if I publish "Theresa May raped a man", there's two ways to view that. 1. It's user generated content on a neutral platform. or 2. It's content published by facebook.).

In the former case, facebook can't be sued for libel. In the latter, they can. Same for copyright violations and so on.

This also applies to criminal posts like incitement to violence and so on.

Zuckerberg and facebook have been insistent they are a platform, not a publisher, and recently told civil rights leaders they weren't in the business of curating political content despite political agitators trying to get them to censor things.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ebook-post

(We can see here how the left wing press is insisting platforms begin to shift into curating political content. Something that a section of the left has been vocally demanding and advancing for what seems like decades now, with this outcome having been warned for ages as an inevitable consequence of continuing to push that.).

Conversely there is Twitter, which has been curating political content openly and adopting a narrow political view of what content is acceptable. They may well now be liable for all content on their platform unless they cease the practice.

I support the move as an important step in reversing the toxic atmosphere that has been cultivated by political agitators engaged in double standards, bad faith arguments, and calls for censorship of political opponents. It's a good day for free speech.

The Order;
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ensorship/
Discuss?

Based, but perhaps doesn't go far enough.

Cyng wrote:Based, but perhaps doesn't go far enough.

What do you think should happen?

Removing sites owners ability to censor speech is good, making them liable for the speech used is bad.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Cyng wrote:Based, but perhaps doesn't go far enough.

What do you think should happen?

Perhaps a change of ownership. I'm not saying nationalizing, but the powers that be in california have made it very clear they don't see an issue with censoring us. We'll never have the ability to express ourselves online until they have their power taken from them.

King of the Incels wrote:Removing sites owners ability to censor speech is good, making them liable for the speech used is bad.

It's a one or the other thing.

If the site owner picks and chooses what is allowed on their site, they become liable for what they allow on their site.
If they allow anyone to publish there without curating, they will not be liable.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

King of the Incels wrote:Removing sites owners ability to censor speech is good, making them liable for the speech used is bad.

It's a one or the other thing.

If the site owner picks and chooses what is allowed on their site, they become liable for what they allow on their site.
If they allow anyone to publish there without curating, they will not be liable.

That actually makes sense.
Of course this is going to impact the kill all men crowd, but I can live with that.

Social media wants to have their cake and eat it too based on whichever is most convenient for them at the moment, I have no problem with forcing them to choose a position.

Cyng wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
What do you think should happen?

Perhaps a change of ownership. I'm not saying nationalizing, but the powers that be in california have made it very clear they don't see an issue with censoring us. We'll never have the ability to express ourselves online until they have their power taken from them.

While they've become overrun by a dangerous hate movement, I think that imposing these rules will mean they get enforced and that's sufficient. I don't think these individuals have the capacity to obey the rules. There doesn't need to be a direct action taken against them. Just criminalize the behavior they impulsively do because that's the sort of people they are, and then crack down when they do so.

You don't need to nationalize twitter directly. Just ban them behaving the way they have or else they face consequences, they'll continue behaving that way, and then you can crack down on them.

It's the difference between "We should pass a law confiscating twitter" and "We should pass a law saying if twitter defames people, they will face fines on penalty of confiscation for not paying.".

The Two Jerseys wrote:Social media wants to have their cake and eat it too based on whichever is most convenient for them at the moment, I have no problem with forcing them to choose a position.

It's based on whatever serves their political agenda.

Very based. Doesn't go far enough, though.

Atheris wrote:Very based. Doesn't go far enough, though.

What would you want to see done?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Atheris wrote:Very based. Doesn't go far enough, though.

What would you want to see done?

Totally removing immunity for any platform or company on the internet.

The case law behind section 230 is not easily unwound by an executive order. Really.

This executive order will be essentially disregarded by the courts at the lowest levels and all the way up, as section 230 is what it is.

The publisher/platform argument is a fun and good one we should have as a society, but whatever we decide, it has to go through Congress.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Social media wants to have their cake and eat it too based on whichever is most convenient for them at the moment, I have no problem with forcing them to choose a position.

It's based on whatever serves their political agenda.

Not really. Being a publisher is what serves their political agenda, they just want to have a "get out of jail free" card for whenever something illegal shows up on their site.

I highly doubt this will do anything, companies will challenge it in court and it will end up like Obama Care. Trumps going to have major trouble getting social media companies to abide by this rule.

Galloism wrote:The case law behind section 230 is not easily unwound by an executive order. Really.

This executive order will be essentially disregarded by the courts at the lowest levels and all the way up, as section 230 is what it is.

The publisher/platform argument is a fun and good one we should have as a society, but whatever we decide, it has to go through Congress.

The order was for the branches controlled by the executive to begin acting as though such things are publishers and to make arguments in support of that view. (Including prosecutors and so on).

Won't this just force social media to ban everyone who doesn't have a nice, friendly opinion at all times OR allow any and all unmoderated content on their platform? I don't see how that's a win for free speech, more a win for making the internet either a place of boring greys or shitposting orgies.

Albrenia wrote:Won't this just force social media to ban everyone who doesn't have a nice, friendly opinion at all times OR allow any and all unmoderated content on their platform? I don't see how that's a win for free speech, more a win for making the internet either a place of boring greys or shitposting orgies.

Its supposed to be a place of shitposting orgies. Artificial structure make it worse. Example here.

Albrenia wrote:Won't this just force social media to ban everyone who doesn't have a nice, friendly opinion at all times OR allow any and all unmoderated content on their platform? I don't see how that's a win for free speech, more a win for making the internet either a place of boring greys or shitposting orgies.

The alternative is what we've already seen, demands for everyone to be boring greys except a faction of anti-white, anti-male bigots who get to decide the rules alongside up and deciding that if you're mean about products they've been paid to flog you then you're being racist/sexist. At least a shitposting orgy is egalitarian.

While places like 4chan and the like work for some people, I don't see all people preferring things that way. So that means places like Youtube are going to have to crack down even more stupidly hard on anyone swearing, expressing opinions or anything like that.

It's not as bad as you guys keep saying, seeing as how if I want to find alt-right opinons on Youtube right now it's as easy as finding far leftist ones. After this, maybe not so much, since they're all gonna have to get banned lest some snowflake on the right or left get upset and decide to sue.

But meh, I assume most companies will just move to somewhere else to dodge the law if they need to.

Ostroeuropa wrote:At least a shitposting orgy is egalitarian.

[Citation Needed]

I strongly support this idea.

"Twitter fact checked me waaaaaaaaaaaaaa"- Trump

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Galloism wrote:The case law behind section 230 is not easily unwound by an executive order. Really.

This executive order will be essentially disregarded by the courts at the lowest levels and all the way up, as section 230 is what it is.

The publisher/platform argument is a fun and good one we should have as a society, but whatever we decide, it has to go through Congress.

The order was for the branches controlled by the executive to begin acting as though such things are publishers and to make arguments in support of that view. (Including prosecutors and so on).

I’m sure the courts will find that very amusing in light of the explicit statutory provisions of section 230.