Yeah it does. Okay, imagine you spread childporn on your website. You are responsible. Similar stuff is posted on twitter im sure.

Why dont we just move to local broadband instead?

But I worry that there is always a maintenance element that people forget.

they are not responsible as long as they are a platform rather than a publisher

if they curate, they are a publisher

thats the rules as they stand now

No it doesn't, that's why people are up in arms about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

i run a decent size platform, if they make me responsible for what others post, I'm dead.

^ This too.

well you are responsible IF you curate

You really need to make Reddit and Facebook like a telephone company.

But @Redneo how do you determine if it's being curated or deleted for breaking the terms of service

if you delete stuff thats not against the law or enforce your guidlines in any other way than with an iron fist to every post equaly, you are responsible

if you tolerate something that violates the letter of your guidlines just as much from an egg account and delete something similar from a big account, you are not equaly enforcing your rules

that's all subjective

But just becuase a company misses a post here or there on one side does not prove that its been curated

Correlation does not equal causation

The only way you can proof that you dont curate is by only removing stuff after receiving a takedown notice from a court

Dont get me wrong I agree

But the company's still deserve legal protection if it's not curating. Just becuase it seems to some that it is, does not make it true

@Redneo as it stands now.. 100's of millions of sites are in violation of what you describe.

Many examples of this

@beaker yes they are

Its still US law

essentially everyone is non-compliant

BLM, the feminist movement, even cults

its not that its illegal to curate, but if you do, you are responsible for everything, and nobody can curate enough to deal with that

But can you prove that they are curating

If you can in legal terms then you have a point

can you link to any such cases that resulted in this specific legal action?

But companies like Facebook and Twitter have arbitration clauses

You cant sue them anyway

@beaker not really but that is why zuckerberg was pressed on curation in his hearing

@Cody oh this isnt about suing. Its about criminal liability

More like the right is biting at nails to try and find dirt on a non issue

its no more enforceable than trying to bust people for thought crimes. New law 'if you think about anything hateful, you will be prosecuted'

Like facebook was spreading videos of people being tortured and such

I would think the bigger issue is not censorship, though it's a big problem

The problem lies in much larger legal inplications

Should massive corporations be allowed to ban anyone when they have so much public influence

Personaly, i dont care