←back to thread

1061 points danso | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ssorc3 ◴[] No.23353512[source]
So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated. Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?
replies(7): >>23353587 #>>23353698 #>>23353709 #>>23353754 #>>23353773 #>>23353798 #>>23353871 #
buzzerbetrayed ◴[] No.23353698[source]
It depends. And the problem that people have is that social media companies want to be both publishers and platforms.

For example, T-Mobile is a platform. They aren't responsible for anything you say when on the phone, using their network.

CNN is a publisher. They are responsible for anything that gets posted on their website, and can get sued accordingly.

Social media companies want to choose what is posted on their website, but also not be held responsible for anything that is posted on their website. They want the perks of being a publisher, and the perks of being a platform.

Obviously there are arguments made on both sides. But that is the general disagreement, if I understand correctly.

replies(7): >>23353758 #>>23353794 #>>23353887 #>>23353924 #>>23353952 #>>23354152 #>>23355449 #
1. elliekelly ◴[] No.23353924[source]
The "publisher" vs "platform" debate is a false dichotomy without any basis in the actual law. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive under Section 230. A newspaper is responsible for the content they "publish" but if I comment on one of their articles they are not responsible for what I've said on their "platform".