> Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online
I believe if it is published in one of those "letters from our readers" section (where the newspaper makes editorial decisions) then they are responsible, is that not so ?
I know that article btw. It's basically a list of reasons why 230 makes no sense in this age where the internet and algorithms is the dominant medium. Content is overabundant now, it doesnt matter anymore, what matters is how you shape the access to it.
and to your other comment, FB and nytimes should be held to the same standards: either both of them are absolved or responsibility or both are not. Think of it this way: nytimes hires journalists to create content that promotes their favourite soccer team. They affect opinions. Facebook hires programmers who use their abundance of "user generated" content (which covers the entire spectrum of soccer fans) and mold their algorithms to promote their favourites.they affect opinions
The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions.
(Btw i agree with what you said about the law, i just think it's an absurd legal situation for this day and age)
>The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions.
What I post on HN or Facebook or in a comment section of the NYT is my responsibility, because I am the source of those posts.
What the NYT publishes as news or opinion is their responsibility as the source of those items.
As for the algorithms in use, that's one of the reasons I quit FB seven years ago. But such algorithms are irrelevant to who authored a particular piece of prose.
The author might be liable for libel/defamation (assuming that can be proved), but the platform that hosts their content is not.
I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this. And I'm going to stop trying to explain it to you.
I believe if it is published in one of those "letters from our readers" section (where the newspaper makes editorial decisions) then they are responsible, is that not so ?
I know that article btw. It's basically a list of reasons why 230 makes no sense in this age where the internet and algorithms is the dominant medium. Content is overabundant now, it doesnt matter anymore, what matters is how you shape the access to it.
and to your other comment, FB and nytimes should be held to the same standards: either both of them are absolved or responsibility or both are not. Think of it this way: nytimes hires journalists to create content that promotes their favourite soccer team. They affect opinions. Facebook hires programmers who use their abundance of "user generated" content (which covers the entire spectrum of soccer fans) and mold their algorithms to promote their favourites.they affect opinions
The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions.
(Btw i agree with what you said about the law, i just think it's an absurd legal situation for this day and age)