If you choose to decide what stays on your platform and what is removed, you should be responsible for the stuff that stays there. If you want to offload the liability to users/posters/commenters/..., then you should not be able to have agendas and decide what is removed (except for illegal stuff of course).
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-...
> We’ll say it plainly here: there is no legal significance to labeling an online service a “platform” as opposed to a “publisher.” Yes. That’s right. There is no legal significance to labeling an online service a “platform.” Nor does the law treat online services differently based on their ideological “neutrality” or lack thereof.
Imagine if Amazon actually does start using political criteria for hosting services, and bans journalists speaking out against torture? Or suppresses sites hosting videos of police brutality? How high on the horse would the EFF be in this position?
The EFF is correct to point out the legal situation in that there's no difference between a publisher and a platform etc. but this is going to get out of hand quickly as corporations start abusing their ability to filter data willy nilly.
I think it also runs counter to the spirit of Net Neutrality and frankly hypocritical in this context.
I don't trust for a moment that Verizon and A&T won't get into the business of messing with information as well to the extent that they have the power to do this.
Our roads and infrastructure generally remain free of interference unless there's something very illegal going on, we ought to maintain some of these practices on the internet itself.
Section 230 protections enhance free speech on the internet, via the safe harbor provisions that allow places like Twitter and HN to function. Without it, you'd have vastly fewer places to publish your thoughts.
Codifying a distinction between platform and publisher would require a place like HN to consider either shutting down comments and submissions entirely or abandoning any efforts at moderation. It would suck, royally.
This is just false.
'Codifying' distinctions between various services would give places like HN even more clear protections by defining the terms in which they operate.
230 is a recipe for disaster, it's completely the opposite of Net Neutrality and is creating a cold war for information control.
It gives cover for Verizon, Amazon etc. to do whatever they like whenever they like.
'Codifying' the status of the various systems would mean ensuring those in the 'Verizon' category could not filter for anything other than QoS, clarifying terms for those like Amazon, and even distinguishing between different kinds of platforms like Facebook/Twitter an HN.
If the tables were turned on the types of information banned by Amazon, there would be outrage. I can only imagine if Bezos were 'an old Trump buddy' fudding with various customers here and there, what the loudest voices would be saying.
There's nothing arbitrary about these various forms of content and information distribution platforms, it wouldn't be that hard at all to clear things up and ensure fair access.
Combined with a 'User Bill of Rights' (aka right to delete accounts, full transparency on data usage etc.) it would be tremendous progress.
The "freedom of speech means any and all speech has to be allowed" strawman doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's perfectly possible to build a platform / publisher distinction where:
- Illegal speech is still illegal and can be rejected
- Speech irrelevant to the platform, like spam, verbal abuse, or demonstrably off-topic speech, can still be rejected by moderators while still permitting deplorable but legitimate speech.
So, no, it wouldn't be the ghastly, no moderation free-for-all that the anti-liberalism advocates try to scare people with.
A "platform" is the common name for a provider of an "interactive computer service" which is in fact contrasted with being a publisher.
Which isn't just a label you can accept or not, but a thing that you either are or aren't based on what you do.
The objection that they're pretending isn't valid, is that excessive editorial control sure looks like it violates the spirit of that distinction.