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?
