tw.tter

[EACLucifer]

what strict liability are you talking about? Stop inventing silliness.

This strict liability

You’re presenting these as rhetorical questions but it’s not clear why you think the answer is no to each. I think each is somewhere between “maybe” and “yes”.

If the answer to the question is yes - as you are saying you think it should be - then it's strict liability, because how the f.ck can there be intent when it's someone else posting something on a website you own and you haven't even seen it yet.

That's why section 230 exists. Because if you host a service where people post things and didn't have protection against being held liable for what they post, you could be punished for something you had no involvement in beyond hosting a website. And that's any website where people post things. Email, social media, wikipedia, product reviews...

[bjn]

Im coming from a different angle.

In trying to make it impossible to run an unmoderated mass social media site at a profit.

Its the size of twitter etc thats the problem. Smash them.

Musk is doing that all by himself.

[plodder]

what strict liability are you talking about? Stop inventing silliness.

This strict liability

You’re presenting these as rhetorical questions but it’s not clear why you think the answer is no to each. I think each is somewhere between “maybe” and “yes”.

If the answer to the question is yes - as you are saying you think it should be <snip>

err

[dyqik]

Twitter seems to have fired its contractors - 5,500 of them. They were most of the moderation team and engineers working on things like child safety.

[Gfamily]

I'd say that one factor that should be taken into account when considering Section 230 indemnity, is where the hosting site has algorithms to promote and push content to users.
I don't think it's reasonable for a social media provider to claim to be a purely disinterested party with if they have any mechanism for determining what gets shown to its users.

[dyqik]

I'd say that one factor that should be taken into account when considering Section 230 indemnity, is where the hosting site has algorithms to promote and push content to users.
I don't think it's reasonable for a social media provider to claim to be a purely disinterested party with if they have any mechanism for determining what gets shown to its users.

How does that change anything? Merely hosting defamatory, illegal or copyrighted material is sufficient to get in legal trouble, regardless of promotion of it.

And it's the users doing the promoting, largely, not the company itself.

[Grumble]

Who bears liability for a website that hosts users who encourage teenagers to commit suicide? This is not a rhetorical question.

[noggins]

Im coming from a different angle.

In trying to make it impossible to run an unmoderated mass social media site at a profit.

Its the size of twitter etc thats the problem. Smash them.

Sure. But you can't do that by legislating liability on everyone who operates a communication medium.

“Targetting content or adverts makes you a publisher”
- that affects isps and messgae boards how?

[dyqik]

Im coming from a different angle.

In trying to make it impossible to run an unmoderated mass social media site at a profit.

Its the size of twitter etc thats the problem. Smash them.

Sure. But you can't do that by legislating liability on everyone who operates a communication medium.

“Targetting content or adverts makes you a publisher”
- that affects isps and messgae boards how?

ISPs often shape traffic and block illegal material. Message boards remove some content, leaving other content up.

It's not targeting in the sense you mean, but selling targeted ads does not mean that illegal posts are targeted.

Again, back to the selling newspapers analogy - putting an ad in front of the Daily Mail stack is targeting Daily Mail buyers. That does not make the newsagent the publisher of the Daily Mail.

[noggins]

But they do that for ALL their users.

Censoring nazis doesnt make you a publisher.

Pushing nazism to nazis does.

[EACLucifer]

But they do that for ALL their users.

Censoring nazis doesnt make you a publisher.

Pushing nazism to nazis does.

Would people please stop acting like refusing to understand the technical distinction between host and publisher makes them righteous?

Not least because you don't have to be a publisher to have a moral responsibility regarding content.

[bolo]

What US law says is that you're not a publisher unless you have editorial control over the content you host, and that taking down objectionable content does not constitute editorial control. Section 230 was enacted, in part, specifically to make this clear. Content hosts remain liable under Section 230 for failing to take down certain specific categories of content, even though they're not publishers, but only those specific categories. Posts that promote Nazism, for example, are not included in those categories, and probably couldn't be because of the 1st Amendment.

Disclaimers: Legal responsibility is not necessarily the same as moral responsibility, and US law is not necessarily the same as law elsewhere, and IANAL.

If anyone can be bothered to read a well informed explanation of this by someone who is a lawyer, writing for (mostly) nonlawyers, try this shortish piece

Liability for Content Hosts: An Overview of the Communication Decency Act’s Section 230
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10306

or this longer one

Section 230: An Overview
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46751

[Woodchopper]

Here’s an attempt to preserve the science Twitter networks: https://opencheck.is/scitwitter

It’s a valuable initiative but it’ll be limited as it’s based upon ORCIDs which are limited to academics. One of the good things about Twitter on Covid was that there were global networks that linked academics, doctors, government officials, journalists and others who had or developed expertise.

[noggins]

Pushing is editorial control. Pushing is publishing. The end.

[dyqik]

Pushing is editorial control. Pushing is publishing. The end.

Do you think a bookshop that promotes certain books over others in its stores is publishing? Can you sue a newsagent for defamation if they put a defamatory issue of the Daily Mail in a prominent place?

In reality, there's a particular level of editorial control that's needed in order to have liability. Pushing unedited content does not meet that standard.

[plodder]

Pushing is editorial control. Pushing is publishing. The end.

Do you think a bookshop that promotes certain books over others in its stores is publishing? Can you sue a newsagent for defamation if they put a defamatory issue of the Daily Mail in a prominent place?

In reality, there's a particular level of editorial control that's needed in order to have liability. Pushing unedited content does not meet that standard.

No but if they were promoting eg pro nazi content in the front window I’m sure we’d all agree there’s some sort of liability there, right?

And so we could treat them in a similar way to publishers in that there are deemed to be reasonable controls over things being factual etc. Rather than getting all huffy and claiming the tech was too complicated for morons to understand or something?

[dyqik]

Pushing is editorial control. Pushing is publishing. The end.

Do you think a bookshop that promotes certain books over others in its stores is publishing? Can you sue a newsagent for defamation if they put a defamatory issue of the Daily Mail in a prominent place?

In reality, there's a particular level of editorial control that's needed in order to have liability. Pushing unedited content does not meet that standard.

No but if they were promoting eg pro nazi content in the front window I’m sure we’d all agree there’s some sort of liability there, right?

No. Pro Nazi content is legal, both in the UK and the US.

[plodder]

Ah I see. The bookshop can or should bear no responsibility whatsoever. Glad you've cleared that up. What about bomb-making manuals, or guides to suicide, or blatant propaganda from hostile states, or terrorist manifestos, or similar? No problem whatsoever I'd imagine - it's all down the publisher.

What if there isn't a publisher? What then? At what point do you think social media firms should be liable for the content they use as the basis for their business models? Do you think the law is perfect, is that it?

[dyqik]

Ah I see. The bookshop can or should bear no responsibility whatsoever. Glad you've cleared that up. What about bomb-making manuals, or guides to suicide, or blatant propaganda from hostile states, or terrorist manifestos, or similar? No problem whatsoever I'd imagine - it's all down the publisher.

Some material is illegal to distribute, and Twitter, YouTube and bookshops all have criminal liability there - see the DMCA and DMCA take downs on Twitter, YouTube etc. for distribution of copyright infringing materials. There are safe harbor provisions that allow for reasonable delays in the removal of illegal material. For defamation, liability rests with publishers, not distributors. For Nazi propaganda, no liability rests anywhere in the UK or US, because the material is legal, even if it unsavory. That material is illegal in Germany, and Twitter, YouTube etc. do have liability there, and do take down material.

You don't seem to be able to keep the differences between distribution of illegal materials, distribution and publication of defamatory materials, and distribution and publication of unsavory materials clear.

[plodder]

Define “publish”

[Bird on a Fire]

Just to be clear in my head, plodder - you're talking about ethics/should rather than legal/is, I think?

[plodder]

Just to be clear in my head, plodder - you're talking about ethics/should rather than legal/is, I think?

I think this is the fourth time I’ve made this explicitly clear in this thread, might only be the third.

[dyqik]

Define “publish”

The law does that quite clearly and better than I can. Exercising significant editorial control is the main distinction between publishing and distribution though.

[Stephanie]

I guess plodder is the current forum black sheep?

From my perspective, he's not raising unreasonable questions - there have been lots of concerns about some of the content going around on social media and how that should be tackled. That doesn't mean getting rid of section 230, but I do think there should be room to talk about these things without the conversation being shut down to this extent.

[dyqik]

I guess plodder is the current forum black sheep?

From my perspective, he's not raising unreasonable questions - there have been lots of concerns about some of the content going around on social media and how that should be tackled. That doesn't mean getting rid of section 230, but I do think there should be room to talk about these things without the conversation being shut down to this extent.

Yes, it's a well known contentious problem, with extensive discussion of the enormous complications around it. Which is why just saying "if you push some content, you are the publisher of everything you distribute" is so irritating as a conversation starter.