It’s great that the site decides. It is exerting editorial control in this case. Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow. Which means, they should be sueable if a user does slander on their platform, posts copyrightable material, etc.

> It is exerting editorial control in this case.

> Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow.

I see this sentiment often on HN, as if the latter somehow logically and necessarily follows from the former. It doesn't, and if that is what you advocate then you should justify it with proper arguments.

The argument is about whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher. This discussion has been going on for years and not just on HN.

Being a platform, like ATT telephone lines, bring certain protections from lawsuits of content. The core of net neutrality is also based on a similar idea; with net neutrality, platforms (cable companies) can not between distinguish services (like throttling Netflix).

In the exact same vein, if Facebook is a platform, it cannot distinguish between the “services” (users producing the content) unless that content is federally criminally illegal. With this, they are not liable for civil matters like slander.

However, if Facebook is a publisher, meaning it can editorialize the content (similar to att choosing to throttle Netflix ), then it will become liable just like every other publishing company (nytimes, nymag, Rolling Stones, you name it).

Hope this helps. There is a lot more info about this on the internet. There were even House hearings on this topic. I encourage you to go look them up.

> Hope this helps.

Thanks for the clarification, but I don't find it convincing.

I disagree with the underlying premise that we should clump social media into (only) two categories (platforms and publishers) where if you exercise any editorial control you are immediately categorized as "publisher" (category that is appropriate for an entity that explicitly and deliberately chooses everything it publishes) and where only "platforms" are protected from lawsuit about their users' content.

> I disagree with the underlying premise that we should clump social media into (only) two categories (platforms and publishers)

If I'm not mistaken, this is a matter of existing case law, so our agreement or disagreement doesn't really matter.

All manners of platforms have terms of services that you must comply with it to be allow you to use that platform. It's not like you are given full freedom to just do whatever you want.

Facebook is no different in this respect.

You make it sound like platforms are these wild west environments where anything goes. It's not like that.

You've jumped the shark here.

Facebook or any similar website can not be expected to vet every single piece of content. There is simply too much and mistakes will be made with automated processes. But what they can do is vet individuals who routinely post inappropriate conduct.

>Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow

You're going to have to repeal §230 of the CDA, then.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

Good luck.

Well, FOSTA/SESTA has already started to dismantle it...

Hacker news is also heavily moderated. If you post defamatory content to HN do you think people should be able to sue HN over it?