alt Hacker NewsYou can be protected by safe harbour provisions, or you can editorialise your content. I don't think you should have both.
Free speech does not cover scams and fraud, something that happens on their platform. Society doesn't take any action against them for publishing illegal content, scams, libel, fraud, because they aren't a newspaper. They're more like a newspaper printing house.
In my opinion they should probably be losing those protections and should suffer legal consequences for the content their users post. The moderation has reached a point where they ate defacto editorialising content.
An alternative to that could be opting in to some kind of third party moderation arbitration process.
Replies
> You can be protected by safe harbour provisions, or you can editorialise your content. I don't think you should have both.
That's hilariously impractical. Just because you want to and can moderate some things doesn't mean you can guarantee rapid moderation of illegal stuff. When your platform is nominally open to everyone, and has millions of users, that just doesn't work out well.
>You can be protected by safe harbour provisions, or you can editorialise your content. I don't think you should have both.
Hi. You seem to be confused or uninformed. Check out this link[0]. IT should help.
[0] https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
i disagree, this just leaves the door open for whatever your preferred manipulation style is. Moderation was added with a purpose
just take away safe harbour as a whole. we dont need to subsidize the existence of Facebook and AWS and ISPs.
> You can be protected by safe harbour provisions, or you can editorialise your content.
Aha, now this is an interesting distinction. I'm not an expert in this, as you might imagine, but what counts as editorialising?
To my naive eyes, having an algorithm that re-arranges posts, or injects new subjects seems like editorialising to me.