Facebook and Twitter don't get to hide under the guise of a platform, and instead are now marked as publishers. A platform is a place that anyone can upload content and that content is theirs and not the platforms. A publisher is similar in that you can upload to it just like a platform, however the publisher decides what to do with that content once it is on their site. Beforehand, social media was saying that they were removing things that violated their terms of service, so they could still act as a platform. This specifically came from the the phrasing "otherwise objectionable" in Section 2, subparagraph A, which allowed platforms to decide what exactly "otherwise objectionable" meant whenever they pleased. Now, based on the rewritten legislation, it removes that wording entirely, and now makes platforms have to prove that they are acting in good faith when removing content. If they cannot prove that they removed the content for a good reason, they stand to lose their platform status and become a publisher. If they become a publisher, it is GAME OVER for them as ALL CONTENT THEY HOST, THEY BECOME LIABLE FOR. Child porn, terrorist orgs using twitter as a propaganda platform, social media censoring free speech. Any laws violated by their users, they become responsible for too when they decide what can and cannot be allowed on their website.
Precisely. The new language states it as "in good faith" and then goes on to describe what that is, as well as what bad faith is. The only way to be considered doing something in good faith would be if the content being removed is illegal, or if it goes against the companies terms of service. Now the kicker is that they cannot put obscene ToS in place, less they want to be marked a publisher. So now they're in a pickle: either go all out and become a publisher and allow the government to take you down, or stay as a platform and allow all discourse to be had on their site. Beautiful, isn't it?
Facebook and Twitter don't get to hide under the guise of a platform, and instead are now marked as publishers. A platform is a place that anyone can upload content and that content is theirs and not the platforms. A publisher is similar in that you can upload to it just like a platform, however the publisher decides what to do with that content once it is on their site. Beforehand, social media was saying that they were removing things that violated their terms of service, so they could still act as a platform. This specifically came from the the phrasing "otherwise objectionable" in Section 2, subparagraph A, which allowed platforms to decide what exactly "otherwise objectionable" meant whenever they pleased. Now, based on the rewritten legislation, it removes that wording entirely, and now makes platforms have to prove that they are acting in good faith when removing content. If they cannot prove that they removed the content for a good reason, they stand to lose their platform status and become a publisher. If they become a publisher, it is GAME OVER for them as ALL CONTENT THEY HOST, THEY BECOME LIABLE FOR. Child porn, terrorist orgs using twitter as a propaganda platform, social media censoring free speech. Any laws violated by their users, they become responsible for too when they decide what can and cannot be allowed on their website.
So if they want to stay a platform they have to have an irrefutable reason to remove content and hate speech is not irrefutable.
Precisely. The new language states it as "in good faith" and then goes on to describe what that is, as well as what bad faith is. The only way to be considered doing something in good faith would be if the content being removed is illegal, or if it goes against the companies terms of service. Now the kicker is that they cannot put obscene ToS in place, less they want to be marked a publisher. So now they're in a pickle: either go all out and become a publisher and allow the government to take you down, or stay as a platform and allow all discourse to be had on their site. Beautiful, isn't it?
Not if you're the CEO of Gab