Comment by ssorc3

> CNN is a publisher. They are responsible for anything that gets posted on their website, and can get sued accordingly.

This isn't true though. CNN/NYTimes/etc can't be sued for 3rd party comments on their site. CNN is also allowed to filter what comments make it on their site. These are not opposing ideas.

The "publisher" vs "platform" debate is a false dichotomy without any basis in the actual law. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive under Section 230. A newspaper is responsible for the content they "publish" but if I comment on one of their articles they are not responsible for what I've said on their "platform".

> It depends. And the problem that people have is that social media companies want to be both publishers and platforms.

> For example, T-Mobile is a platform. They aren't responsible for anything you say when on the phone, using their network.

> CNN is a publisher. They are responsible for anything that gets posted on their website, and can get sued accordingly.

Also T-Mobile is a point-to-point communications platform, while CNN is a broadcaster.

Social media seems like a new thing that doesn't have directly analogous antecedents. It's a high-impact, wide-reach broadcaster that has little to no editorial control. Before it, broadcasters lacking editorial control were marginal and low-reach.

I still find this to be such a silly comparison, really.

CNN is a publisher.. they pay people to be on TV, they pay people to write articles. Of course CNN (the company) is liable for what it puts out, because they are literally creating 100% of the content and paying people to do it. So if they are slandering someone with no basis, it's logical to say "Uh CNN is literally paying people to write lies to mislead people".

Now let's take a site like HN. People post articles here, people comment on articles. HN isn't "creating" any of the content like CNN. So obviously some random person posting a story or commenting complete bullshit is not HN's goal.

Now what's the argument... that as soon as HN starts to flag something as misleading, remove "spam" (who determines what is a spam article?), then suddenly they are put into a publisher realm and can get sued for what is or is not on there?

I mean.. to me that is LAUGHABLE that someone wants to argue as soon as a site like reddit/twitter/hn starts to do anything to the content they treated like a publisher and are liable for the content. This already happens a billion times a day across all those platforms anyway.

perhaps there aren't two sides.. that there is a genuine third form: the publisher-platform -- one which best describes both how these platforms do operate, and how they should do so.

When you have billions of users wanting to post content you can hardly be a publisher in any traditional sense; nor will the gov./society/users let you be a platform.

This is precisely what Trump's executive order targets. Section 230 of the CDA gave websites and social media networks a little wiggle room in the platform vs publisher stance. They could moderate as they see fit without being liable for the content on their sites. Now that's being weakening, or more precisely becoming more well defined by the FCC. There will be strict requirements to be considered a platform, one example of which is needing to have a well defined terms of service and strictly follow that all across the board.

Here is a very recent (likely put out due to this as it's not a full opinion) ruling on the topic: https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/27/facebook-twitter-a...

"Freedom Watch's First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment 'prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,'" the court wrote, citing a previous opinion issued by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The judges went on to say that "'a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.'"