I'm saying if this "publisher" stuff gets applied to places like Twitter and Youtube it would also get applied to this site and then that opens the door for lawsuits and all kinds of censorship. Who would want to run a platform like this when you can be held responsible for random peoples comments and posts?
Who would want to run a platform like this when you can be held responsible for random peoples comments and posts?
If you're a platform, you won't be held responsble.
The issue is that being a platform rather than a publisher puts significant limits on what you can remove.
I'd be more clear on what you can and can't remove, but the current lack of caselaw (which will be shook out after the first ruling that turns a "platform" into a publisher) doesn't provide me with much guidelines.
Yeah I used the wrong semantics in that sentence. Of course what I was saying was who would want to run a site like this when you can be held responsible for random peoples comments and posts? Seems if Youtube gets ruled a publisher then sites like this are next.
I'd be more clear on what you can and can't remove
I have a feeling that would work in the left's favor or change nothing at all, might even increase unwanted censorship a hundred fold on sites that are not 100% free speech sites. I think it's a very dangerous push.
Youtube, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook have essentially become public forums and public utilities and should be legally regarded as such. That solves the issue, all that publisher stuff just seems to create a bigger mess.
This site is an exchange of ideas. Right now it’s still legal. Oh yea and that pesky constitution keeps it that way. Life comes with risk.
I'm saying if this "publisher" stuff gets applied to places like Twitter and Youtube it would also get applied to this site and then that opens the door for lawsuits and all kinds of censorship. Who would want to run a platform like this when you can be held responsible for random peoples comments and posts?
If you're a platform, you won't be held responsble.
The issue is that being a platform rather than a publisher puts significant limits on what you can remove.
I'd be more clear on what you can and can't remove, but the current lack of caselaw (which will be shook out after the first ruling that turns a "platform" into a publisher) doesn't provide me with much guidelines.
Yeah I used the wrong semantics in that sentence. Of course what I was saying was who would want to run a site like this when you can be held responsible for random peoples comments and posts? Seems if Youtube gets ruled a publisher then sites like this are next.
I have a feeling that would work in the left's favor or change nothing at all, might even increase unwanted censorship a hundred fold on sites that are not 100% free speech sites. I think it's a very dangerous push.
Youtube, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook have essentially become public forums and public utilities and should be legally regarded as such. That solves the issue, all that publisher stuff just seems to create a bigger mess.