> When they use "algorithms", they are equivalent to publishing. Similar to how newspapers can't just publish everything.
No, that's the point. Facebook, even if it moderates content, and no matter how it moderates content, still isn't liable for failing to moderate some content.
The misunderstanding is so completely fundamental: Section 230 doesn't actually make any distinction between "platforms" and "publishers" that entire distinction was made up by conservative pundits.
The relevant section of 230 is, in full "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (there's more, but it has to do specifically with child porn). You can't "lose" section 230 protection by doing or failing to do certain things or acting in a certain way. The law just doesn't include anything about that.
> When they use "algorithms", they are equivalent to publishing.
No, moderation is not equivalent to publishing, and the legislative history of section 230 makes this incredibly clear. Prior to 230, a website operator had two options: they could attempt to moderate content, but in doing so invite liability, or they could do no moderation at all and have no liability. Section 230 provided "good samaritan" protections to allow site operators to moderate user-generated content without inviting additional liability (the wikipedia section has a good rundown of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Background_and_pas...).
So yeah, there's no such thing as a platform, everyone is a publisher, and all publishers have section 230 protection which allows them to moderate user generated content without inviting liability. You've been lied to about the law. It is intended to allow website operators to engage in certain forms of "editorial decisions". That's the point. That's why congress passed it.
"Promoted content" and fake "Trending" is moderation now? Sounds like "moderation" is being used as a head fake for publishing.
You are talking about how things are right now and I am talking about how things should be to make things fair. 2 very different things.
Your logic would have been used to claim slavery/segregation/Jim Crow/railroads is okay because it's the law!
Trillion dollar companies deciding what can and can't be said, promoting some view points, and suppressing others. They've gone from platforms to publishers. That's how we get the "lab leak" debacle.
> You are talking about how things are right now and I am talking about how things should be to make things fair. 2 very different things.
You may have pivoted to that now, but no, you started by talking about what you believed the law was, and how you thought Facebook was breaking it.
I have no problem with you being of the opinion that we should regulate publishers. I mean it's usually a first amendment violation, but I too want some of those on occasion. However just understand that the law does not, and never has, made a distinction between a platform and publisher. That difference was invented in like 2017.
Online “platforms” have always been publishers; CDA Section 230 was adopted expressly to preserve that without exposing them to traditional publisher liability.
No, that's the point. Facebook, even if it moderates content, and no matter how it moderates content, still isn't liable for failing to moderate some content.
The misunderstanding is so completely fundamental: Section 230 doesn't actually make any distinction between "platforms" and "publishers" that entire distinction was made up by conservative pundits.
The relevant section of 230 is, in full "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (there's more, but it has to do specifically with child porn). You can't "lose" section 230 protection by doing or failing to do certain things or acting in a certain way. The law just doesn't include anything about that.
> When they use "algorithms", they are equivalent to publishing.
No, moderation is not equivalent to publishing, and the legislative history of section 230 makes this incredibly clear. Prior to 230, a website operator had two options: they could attempt to moderate content, but in doing so invite liability, or they could do no moderation at all and have no liability. Section 230 provided "good samaritan" protections to allow site operators to moderate user-generated content without inviting additional liability (the wikipedia section has a good rundown of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Background_and_pas...).
So yeah, there's no such thing as a platform, everyone is a publisher, and all publishers have section 230 protection which allows them to moderate user generated content without inviting liability. You've been lied to about the law. It is intended to allow website operators to engage in certain forms of "editorial decisions". That's the point. That's why congress passed it.