Should Social Media be Considered to be Carriers or Publishers? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should Social Media be Considered to be Carriers or Publishers?

1. They are carriers.
8
62%
2. They are publishers.
2
15%
3. They are something new and need a new category.
2
15%
4. Other
1
8%
#15091076
We all know it and we all love and hate it, but social media has become a central pillar in our social life now, trumping TV, newspapers, phones and so much else. Their success is down to them being open access for content creators while at the same time offering publisher like presentation and distribution power. That they are open access makes them like carriers such as the post office, road network, internet service providers or phone companies, but in so far as they can and do exercise editorial control over content they do act like publishers too. Can they be both? Or must they be one or the other.

A carrier should not discriminate, especially politically, against those that use their service but then neither are they liable for whatever is transmitted using their network.

A publisher can discriminate, even politically, on what content they allow on their platform but likewise they are generally held to be liable for that content too.

Social media is currently enjoying the best of both worlds: they can curate like a publisher, but want to avoid liability for the content like they were a carrier.

I think in general the law is pushing them into the publisher category because there have been cases made against social media companies holding them accountable for the content posted to their platform. On the other hand the public in general tends to treat them like a carrier because they interact with social media as freely as they would a carrier. To underscore that if any censorship or curation occurs it happens AFTER the user has posted in most cases. This is not something that ever happens with publishers. If one writes an article for a publisher like the NYT then an editor will look it over and exercise editorial control over it BEFORE it is made public. This is not something that happens with carriers.

So which are they? Or can they be both?
#15091084
Godstud wrote:They are carriers, but that determine what is carried on their platforms.

Your determination that a carrier should not discriminate, is based on what, exactly? A belief?

Well of course in a police state or totalitarian "society" carriers would be made to discriminate but in a free country that is not expected. It never happens and the general opinion is that it should not.
#15091085
A "private" carrier can indeed discriminate, if it's a social media platform. Not all carriers are equal, and your comparison to cell phones or the mail service is a poor comparison.

Even so, it is illegal to mail certain items, so even carriers have limitations, and can discriminate.

It is not a general opinion that it should not be allowed to discriminate in a free country. Not if people's reactions to Youtube is anything to go by. I think this is YOUR opinion.

That's cool. I disagree with your opinion, however.
#15091089
Godstud wrote:A "private" carrier can indeed discriminate, if it's a social media platform. Not all carriers are equal, and your comparison to cell phones or the mail service is a poor comparison.

Even so, it is illegal to mail certain items, so even carriers have limitations, and can discriminate.

It is not a general opinion that it should not be allowed to discriminate in a free country. Not if people's reactions to Youtube is anything to go by. I think this is YOUR opinion.

That's cool. I disagree with your opinion, however.

Why do you disagree? You want less freedom? What if the new CEO of your preferred social media platform, the one that is home to your entire social network, turns out to be a hardcore evangelical Christian and he decides to have all atheist content wiped and all atheists blocked from using it? You would be cool with that?
#15091092
:roll:

I'd use a different platform, or conform to the limits imposed by that private carrier.

You don't have absolute freedom on the carrier know as Pofo, which discriminates. Why don't you protest that?

Is Pofo totalitarian, or does it merely have rules of etiquette?
#15091101
:lol:

I am making a point, but I can tell you fail to see it, or don't want to.

Youtube has rules, too.

A quick sample of some of the videos on YouTube might lead you to believe that anything goes. In reality, YouTube has a strict set of rules that all members must follow. Specifically, it's against YouTube's policies to post videos that:

Are pornographic or sexually explicit
Contain frontal nudity (though bare behinds abound on YouTube)
Feature graphic violence
Include disturbing or disgusting video footage
Violate copyright laws
Contain hate speech, including verbal attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability or nationality
Reveal other users' personal information



Just like Pofo.

When you choose to use Youtube, you are agreeing to abiding by their rules.
#15091105
@Godstud It may be that the platforms themselves are unsure of whether they should be considered to be carriers or publishers. So they have these rules to try to mitigate the risk of being held liable like they were a publisher. I have been thinking of starting a new forum with full on no holds barred free speech but I admit I do not know if that would not be legal suicide if I could be held liable for what others post. Even the word "forum" implies a free speech zone as the marketplace was a public place for all to meet and speak and make public debate in ancient Rome. So in a sense, internet forums are much less free than they are advertised to be by their name.
Last edited by SolarCross on 12 May 2020 16:28, edited 1 time in total.
#15091120
Pants-of-dog wrote:Just to be clear, some carriers can and do have the right to refuse to deliver or platform certain types of speech.

https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/f ... propaganda

That is Canada though. Canada is a bit iffy when it comes to human rights, look what they do to the aboriginals. Their fascist dictator Trudeau even admits to genociding them. I do not think we want to lower ourselves to their standards.
#15091121
SolarCross wrote:That is Canada though. Canada is a bit iffy when it comes to human rights, look what they do to the aboriginals. Their fascist dictator Trudeau even admits to genociding them. I do not think we want to lower ourselves to their standards.


This is an ad hominem directed at Canada and its government. It is not an argument.

It is still a fact that carriers can and do restrict which speech they deliver.
#15091123
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is an ad hominem directed at Canada and its government. It is not an argument.

It is still a fact that carriers can and do restrict which speech they deliver.

That is the only example of it outside of Nazi Germany or the USSR. An anomaly. What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if carriers took it upon themselves to ban users that made "hate speech" against capitalists, zionists, white people or whoever you like to froth over? @skinster seems to understand that. I am sure she is no fan of the alt-right turds but she understands that what can be done to them can be done to herself or yourself and for the same reasons.
#15091127
SolarCross wrote:That is the only example of it outside of Nazi Germany or the USSR. An anomaly. What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if carriers took it upon themselves to ban users that made "hate speech" against capitalists, zionists, white people or whoever you like to froth over? @skinster seems to understand that. I am sure she is no fan of the alt-right turds but she understands that what can be done to them can be done to herself or yourself and for the same reasons.


This is also not an argument about carriers.

Getting back to what we are actually discussing, there are different types of carriers. Common carriers are obligated by law to carry whatever the client wants, while enhanced carriers are not.
#15091133
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am always amazed at how quickly you get offended by me.

Back to the topic:

There should also be a distinction between public carriers and private carriers.

If you do not care about free speech you should not have it yourself. Again I hope they ban you.

I hope skinster is free to rail against whoever she likes until the end of time, so I am not being partisan. If she is would protect the free speech of others, even people she regards as enemies, then she deserves to have it herself. You and Godstud both deserve to lose it.
#15091144
@SolarCross

Yes, you like personal attacks against me.

The important thing is that enhanced carriers do not provide a basic service. They provide an enhanced or luxury service, so they are not as regulated. I need water. I do not need Youtube videos. So the government is going to make sure everyone (who is white) gets clean water, but may not spend equal resources making sure you can access Youtube videos that confirm a racist bias.

That cop should be fired immediately and charged […]

These looters are infants. They go with the peace[…]

@Drlee If it's one thing that Trump has demons[…]

Trump is going to win in November. He is winning […]