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

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

the solution is to NOT have big tech companies in control of social media

Fuck off with that invisible hand of the market shit

@Beef Taquitos except the solutions exist

its not invisible, we are there

That's the only people who will ever be in control of social media

They just have to be restricted