Re:Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work
by mch82 on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @09:21PM
(#21278068)
“Facebook, [company attorneys] repeatedly argued, is a publisher, and a company that makes editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-...
Re:Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work
by manfredo on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @10:00PM
(#21278276)
...which doesn't at all affect their section 230 protections. Again, contrary to popular belief, whether or not a service considers itself a "publisher" or a "platform" has no bearing on its protections under section 230. It's all about whether the content was user generated, or written by the service itself.
Why people are dedicating so much attention to the fact that Facebook calls itself a publisher is a mystery to me.
See https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230 for more details.
Re:Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work
by Nasrudith on Thursday October 17, 2019 @09:19AM
(#21281699)
It seems to be someone's talking points or more charitably a meme (differentiated by how organic the idea is). The publisher/platform dichotomy is a flat out wrong myth which keeps on being repeated - and often from high places.
I would call it outright propaganda at this point because the dogged insistence on not listening to objective facts seems more "big lie" style opinion shaping than mere ignorance which has caught on. At this point I reflexive downvote all who repeat it uncritically as "fact".
Furthermore this whole "publisher" vs "platform" argument is not nearly as relevant as people make it seem. Contrary to popular belief, tech companies describing themselves as publishers instead of platforms does not affect the fact that they are not held liable for user generated content (so long as they meet reasonable standards for taking it down when notified). The New York Times is afforded the same protection for user generated content that they host (e.g. their comments section).