Message from @beaker
Discord ID: 506758845020897280
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
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
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
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
Im glad if they get massivly fucked up tbh. We have technology wuch as blockchain now, nothing, including highly illegal material, can be removed.
Like dont get me wrong, I think your right but how do we stop and prove they are a publisher?
We cant argue the problem
Here's my proposal. Very large social media sites and tech firms (say, >40% market share, though precise numbers and triggers are debatable) are required to act as a common carrier and cannot discriminate for any reason that's not explicitly illegal (like the phone companies or mail services).
alternatively, we could create a two-type system. You can act as a publisher and curate or do what you want, but become liable for what you host (within takedown limits). Or you can be a platform and obtain immunity from basically everything that's not expressly illegal.
Right now, you can curate *and* be immune.
Removing the ability to curate from everyone is infeasible, impractical and poorly thought out (you would have difficulty running a personal blog for example and the regulators would have to monitor everything on the internet). Simply making everyone liable just opens up the SPLC to sue everyone they don't like into oblivion and would kill the internet as a whole.
We must argue the solution
You'd need new legislation.
The solution is the free market
Giant mega corps being considered common carriers is the best option imo
teh obvious answer to cortez's figure is that she's including undocumented's in it