META (Facebook) Banning Conservatives over their opinions.....

[Harpy Eagle]

Because whereas service providers or social media companies cannot be sued for harmful content that exists in their domain, "publishers" can.

Because a publisher pre-approves everything before it is post to a site/paper

 

[multivita-man]

Because a publisher pre-approves everything before it is post to a site/paper

In theory at least. At minimum, there could be a responsibility of a publisher to respond to a complaint and remove offending commentary. That's why interactive websites/forums make you agree to their terms of service (a legally binding contract) as a condition of your participation. They're giving themselves 230-like protections in a sense. Don't like it or don't agree? Don't use the site.

 

[iceberg]

Correct we do not since social media is not pre-approve every post before it can be seen.

Why do you so desperately want this to become the norm?

You are missing the point

Facebook, I'm told, is a private company and can do what they want.

Yet publishers and platforms have rules they must adhere to as, spelled out by sect 230. These are also private companies.

Why do they have responsibilities and social media does not?

 

[iceberg]

Because a publisher pre-approves everything before it is post to a site/paper

publisher

1. an organization that publishes text or music 2. an employee of a publishing…

dictionary.cambridge.org

"deciding what is published"

So when they remove commentary and/or correct you, what is this?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are missing the point

Facebook, I'm told, is a private company and can do what they want.

Yet publishers and platforms have rules they must adhere to as, spelled out by sect 230. These are also private companies.

Why do they have responsibilities and social media does not?

Because they do not pre-approve everything before the public sees it...this is a HUGE difference.

And even social media companies have limits, they can be sued for things like child porn and more.

 

[iceberg]

In theory at least. At minimum, there could be a responsibility of a publisher to respond to a complaint and remove offending commentary. That's why interactive websites/forums make you agree to their terms of service (a legally binding contract) as a condition of your participation. They're giving themselves 230-like protections in a sense. Don't like it or don't agree? Don't use the site.

S230 protections said they didn't have to remove it as they are not responsible AS A PLATFORM.

 

[multivita-man]

View attachment 686080

~S~

I knew plenty of non-leftist political posters when I was on Facebook. Many were fine and I had no problem with them, but some were people I no longer recognized, trapped in their own perverse info-bubble. And yes, there were one or two on the left side of the spectrum who fit this description, too, and I lost respect for them as well.

It was sad to see people who I knew were intelligent and decent in many respects get confined into the space of their ideological tribe, but I began to realize that Facebook in particular seems to profit off of this kind of madness. Rage posting was their business model. They figured out that people are addicted to the train wreck, either as participants or as merely passive observers who want to be somehow entertained. I mean, to a great extent, I think we can certainly see that dynamic play out here. I admit that I'm no better in this respect - I fall prey to these impulses to lash out as well. And yeah, I know, it's stupid. Whether we like it or not, I guess we do take our politics personally - probably a lot more personally than we should in some cases, though in other cases it's hard not to take it as a personal affront.

Tl/dr, that's why I deleted my FB account. Instead of experiencing the thrill and delight of reconnecting with relatives who lived far away and with people whom I had fond memories of and hadn't seen in years, that delight devolved into toxic cynicism as I saw people reveal their worst prejudices and irrational fears. In the end, I was left with a sense of great despair that our society was and is now tearing itself apart, for trivial reasons in many cases. Adding insult to injury was knowing that there are people in Menlo Park, California who are getting paid a shit ton of money to do this, to goad us into rhetorically disemboweling each other. So much for Mark Zuckerberg's brining the world together crap. Quite the opposite: I saw relationships die in that space.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

publisher

1. an organization that publishes text or music 2. an employee of a publishing…

dictionary.cambridge.org

"deciding what is published"

So when they remove commentary and/or correct you, what is this?

It is not deciding what is published, if that was the case each post on here would have to be approved before anyone can see it.

What they are doing is policing the content to ensure it fits within the TOS.

This site does the same thing. Do you want this site to become liable for each and every post any of us make?

 

[iceberg]

Because they do not pre-approve everything before the public sees it...this is a HUGE difference.

And even social media companies have limits, they can be sued for things like child porn and more.

Find me a legal definition that says this "pre-approved"

You add this as your interpretation but won't allow others their interpretation.

 

[iceberg]

It is not deciding what is published, if that was the case each post on here would have to be approved before anyone can see it.

What they are doing is policing the content to ensure it fits within the TOS.

This site does the same thing. Do you want this site to become liable for each and every post any of us make?

It is if they remove your post

And you are pretending rules don't change when you are the monopoly cute.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Find me a legal definition that says this "pre-approved"

You add this as your interpretation but won't allow others their interpretation.

what do you think " deciding what is published" means?

 

[dblack]

You are missing the point

Facebook, I'm told, is a private company and can do what they want.

Yet publishers and platforms have rules they must adhere to as, spelled out by sect 230. These are also private companies.

Why do they have responsibilities and social media does not?

Because it's the most rational resolution to the problem.

I wish I could wave a magic wand and erase 230. It would cause some legal chaos, for a while, but after a few months, maybe a year or two - courts would come around to a precedent that looked very much like 230, if not exactly the same. Because it's what works. We're not going to shut down the internet because Trumpsters are mad at Twitter.

 

[multivita-man]

S230 protections said they didn't have to remove it as they are not responsible AS A PLATFORM.

I'm not sure what you're agreeing or disagreeing with.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is if they remove your post

And you are pretending rules don't change when you are the monopoly cute.

So, you think this site should be liable for each and every post since they do remove people's post?

The rules should not change. If the rules change and are different for one company or the next based on success then we do not have equal protection under the law.

 

[iceberg]

what do you think " deciding what is published" means?

Deleting things that shouldn't be.

Now why should other private companies have rules they must abide by but Facebook should not.

You are avoiding that. A simple "because they are neither" isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

 

[iceberg]

I'm not sure what you're agreeing or disagreeing with.

While the definitions are not 100%, they are the best we have to define Facebook and social media rules of engagement.

Social media takes the benefits of both sides and the responsibility of neither.

Where are their own rules to adhere to? All this "private company can do as they wish" is bullshit.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Deleting things that shouldn't be.

That is not deciding what is published since they have to already have been published to be deleted.

Now why should other private companies have rules they must abide by but Facebook should not.

That is not what I am saying at all. FB should abide by the same rules as other social media companies. They should not abide by the rules of publishers since they are not one.

You are avoiding that. A simple "because they are neither" isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

I am not avoiding anything, I am pointing out the massive difference between FB and the NY Times.

 

[multivita-man]

While the definitions are not 100%, they are the best we have to define Facebook and social media rules of engagement.

Social media takes the benefits of both sides and the responsibility of neither.

Where are their own rules to adhere to? All this "private company can do as they wish" is bullshit.

I think 230 is probably the best way to deal with them. I think it probably works out fairly well most of the time, in tandem with public pressure. The only other reasonable alternative is to amend the act and write out specific terms that apply specifically to social media companies, and maybe it'll come to that. I just hope it's when Democrats control the federal government, because if it happens when the Rs have the power, who knows what kind of batshittery they'll insert into the law.

 

[iceberg]

That is not deciding what is published since they have to already have been published to be deleted.



That is not what I am saying at all. FB should abide by the same rules as other social media companies. They should not abide by the rules of publishers since they are not one.



I am not avoiding anything, I am pointing out the massive difference between FB and the NY Times.

What are those rules then? As applied by the gov in the same manner as s230 applies to their respective targets?

 

[iceberg]

I think 230 is probably the best way to deal with them. I think it probably works out fairly well most of the time, in tandem with public pressure. The only other reasonable alternative is to amend the act and write out specific terms that apply specifically to social media companies, and maybe it'll come to that. I just hope it's when Democrats control the federal government, because if it happens when the Rs have the power, who knows what kind of batshittery they'll insert into the law.

I also think not perfect but best we have.

In that light, is Facebook a platform or publisher?

And if rules done to benefit a side, R or D, you are not fixing a thing. Battshittery dems abusing it is why we are here.