Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Hunter Biden Expose is "Fake News"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tall73" data-source="post: 75433787" data-attributes="member: 125574"><p>Yes, I came across it. And no, it was not blocked from people who want to go to the NY post or may use an aggregator that still included it.</p><p></p><p>But the difference in this case is that Facebook for instance, which drives a lot of news views from the "spoon feeding" crowd as you mention, is claiming not to be a publisher, but is operating under section 230 liability protections as a platform. So "advertising" as you call it, hosting other views, is what they are designed for, and why they receive such protections. I am not a big fan of changing section 230 protections because they have allowed for more voices without the platforms being sued out of existence. But the more they are perceived as limiting viewpoints, the more that becomes likely.</p><p></p><p>Courts have broadly interpreted their ability to edit content, ban users, etc. However, if they keep pushing lines that appear to penalize narratives in perceived political ways (not just the right, but at times the anti-war left, etc. as well), they are likely to see some of these protections reduced, or see some other action taken. If the NY Post puts out a poor article, it is their reputation that will be impacted. If Facebook decides it won't allow the article, it is Facebook's reputation that is called into question because they no longer appear to be acting as a platform, but as a publisher with editorial discretion. On the user level it hurts their reputation because you have an article you want to share, and they will not let you do it. It is perceived to be unfair, because they have allowed other stories that seem poorly sourced.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed, I would say social media is increasingly part of that because platforms by design can take lesser voices to more people. This has been a good development.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You have just cited two very different entities. Fox news does exercise editorial discretion and decides not to report on things. And for this reason they do not enjoy section 230 protections. They publish their own material, and are responsible for it, and can be pursued for defamation, etc.</p><p></p><p>Youtube hosts material from many, many users, as a platform, and is not responsible for the content because of liability protection provided under section 230.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think a news organization has an imperative to cover every story, because there may not even be enough resources to do so. However, when there is a trend that they choose not to cover what will upset one side or the other of a political divide, that hurts their reputation. Some may want that type of news where everything agrees with them. But others want more fair coverage. But beyond just the market forces, there is recourse to the courts if they are truly defaming, etc.</p><p></p><p>Platforms, on the other hand, are hosting other people's ideas. They don't need to be deciding what one they think is true.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Under current law we agree that the answer is no. Section 230 grants some good faith moderating. The courts interpretation of that has been quite broad, perhaps broader than the statute, allowing them to essentially ban, remove, etc. at will. But the social media platforms are running the risk that lawmakers may revisit the situation if they are perceived as moderating for viewpoints rather than harmful content.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, you need to distinguish between publishers and platforms. Someone can control everything they want on their site. But the question is whether they will enjoy special liability protections carved out for those hosting other people's viewpoints.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tall73, post: 75433787, member: 125574"] Yes, I came across it. And no, it was not blocked from people who want to go to the NY post or may use an aggregator that still included it. But the difference in this case is that Facebook for instance, which drives a lot of news views from the "spoon feeding" crowd as you mention, is claiming not to be a publisher, but is operating under section 230 liability protections as a platform. So "advertising" as you call it, hosting other views, is what they are designed for, and why they receive such protections. I am not a big fan of changing section 230 protections because they have allowed for more voices without the platforms being sued out of existence. But the more they are perceived as limiting viewpoints, the more that becomes likely. Courts have broadly interpreted their ability to edit content, ban users, etc. However, if they keep pushing lines that appear to penalize narratives in perceived political ways (not just the right, but at times the anti-war left, etc. as well), they are likely to see some of these protections reduced, or see some other action taken. If the NY Post puts out a poor article, it is their reputation that will be impacted. If Facebook decides it won't allow the article, it is Facebook's reputation that is called into question because they no longer appear to be acting as a platform, but as a publisher with editorial discretion. On the user level it hurts their reputation because you have an article you want to share, and they will not let you do it. It is perceived to be unfair, because they have allowed other stories that seem poorly sourced. Agreed, I would say social media is increasingly part of that because platforms by design can take lesser voices to more people. This has been a good development. You have just cited two very different entities. Fox news does exercise editorial discretion and decides not to report on things. And for this reason they do not enjoy section 230 protections. They publish their own material, and are responsible for it, and can be pursued for defamation, etc. Youtube hosts material from many, many users, as a platform, and is not responsible for the content because of liability protection provided under section 230. I don't think a news organization has an imperative to cover every story, because there may not even be enough resources to do so. However, when there is a trend that they choose not to cover what will upset one side or the other of a political divide, that hurts their reputation. Some may want that type of news where everything agrees with them. But others want more fair coverage. But beyond just the market forces, there is recourse to the courts if they are truly defaming, etc. Platforms, on the other hand, are hosting other people's ideas. They don't need to be deciding what one they think is true. Under current law we agree that the answer is no. Section 230 grants some good faith moderating. The courts interpretation of that has been quite broad, perhaps broader than the statute, allowing them to essentially ban, remove, etc. at will. But the social media platforms are running the risk that lawmakers may revisit the situation if they are perceived as moderating for viewpoints rather than harmful content. Again, you need to distinguish between publishers and platforms. Someone can control everything they want on their site. But the question is whether they will enjoy special liability protections carved out for those hosting other people's viewpoints. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Hunter Biden Expose is "Fake News"
Top
Bottom