Should Social Media Giant's Keep Their Immunity To US Libel Laws?

[Perraine]

Non, no, no. You both are still using a false equivalence. Twitter, Facebook and other media sites ARE claiming exemption from the law under the false assertion that they are "public" forums and therefore not subject to the laws regarding responsibility of content posted, but they are still censoring and editorializing. That's called having your cake and eating it too.

 

The Nexus is exempt form prosecution, provided they abide by the laws of the country they are in (which I believe in this case is the UK, and therefore slightly different from the US ) regarding things such as child pornography, or allowing minors access to overtly sexualized content. But they do not claim the right to censor, or accept the responsibility to censor, AND be exempt from those laws, as companies such as Twitter and Facebook are.

 

- Particularly egregious is Twitter, who, for example, have allowed a false, misleading and downright disgusting photograph to remain posted and visible on a Chinese MP's page simply for financial and political reasons (and from a former member of the ADF, I find it doubly offensive) I would like the image to be taken down and an apology issued, and if Twitter actually abided by their own rules, it would be, but they do not. However ...

 

I would most vehemently defend the right of said MP to post that image, regardless of the content IF, Twitter was indeed a "public" forum.

 

Secondly, again @colourwheel, you paint a false equivalence. If I posted my personal information online for anyone to see, then I could hardly complain if that information was disseminated to others. But as it stands now, that information would have to be STOLEN against my wishes, and against the law in order to for me to be "doxxed". So it is NOT the same thing at all.

[colourwheel]

 

Non, no, no. You both are still using a false equivalence. Twitter, Facebook and other media sites ARE claiming exemption from the law under the false assertion that they are "public" forums and therefore not subject to the laws regarding responsibility of content posted, but they are still censoring and editorializing. That's called having your cake and eating it too.

 

The Nexus is exempt form prosecution, provided they abide by the laws of the country they are in (which I believe in this case is the UK, and therefore slightly different from the US ) regarding things such as child pornography, or allowing minors access to overtly sexualized content. But they do not claim the right to censor, or accept the responsibility to censor, AND be exempt from those laws, as companies such as Twitter and Facebook are.

 

1st off Twitter , Facebook, and and other media sites that happen to operate on American soil might claim to be "public" forums but it doesn't matter what they call their platforms, They are still owned by private corporations. On the internet there technically isn't such a thing as a true "public" forum because to host one requires money, maintenance, moderation, etc... Also it doesn't matter where in the world these internet platforms operate, If you have access to a platform that operates in a different country that platform would still have to meet certain standards for you to even access anyways. As an example there are many platforms that operate in different countries where users in other countries do not have access to because they completely operate within their countries laws. Maybe one day try to manually log into some South Korean Site, which in order to do so you would need to fill out your name, address, phone number, and the equivalent to a social security number just to have access to it. Using any search engine like google, your probably having access to maybe only a small fraction of sites and platforms depending on where you are trying to access them from. Usually internet providers will automatically filter out millions of clients as unsafe because they don't have any clear idea of how they are regulated. Unless you change your settings to be able to visit unsafe sites and platforms you most likely will never know they even exist. Also if you change your settings your service provider will still probably block sites they claim as unsafe anyways. One would strongly advise not to visit any unsafe site or platform because most the time it will be harmful to the device you are using infecting it with malware or a virus since it's either unknown or completely unregulated. If I am wrong about this understanding someone please correct me.

 

 

Secondly, again @colourwheel, you paint a false equivalence. If I posted my personal information online for anyone to see, then I could hardly complain if that information was disseminated to others. But as it stands now, that information would have to be STOLEN against my wishes, and against the law in order to for me to be "doxxed". So it is NOT the same thing at all.

 

Maybe my example wasn't extreme enough for you to understand the importance of some censorship. Just imagine your spouse or even daughter being exploited on the internet on some "public" forum to see. Maybe even a more extreme situation where another user has photos or video sexually compromising your spouse or daughter which they happen to lawfully own suddenly decided to upload them. I could get more explicit but I am sure you can use you own imagination.

Edited January 15, 2021 by colourwheel

[Perraine]

You are still failing to actually see the point/s.

 

Twitter and others ARE claiming exemption from any responsibility for what is posted on their site/s under the guise of being "public forums". THAT is the point! Of course, as PRIVATE companies they can censor and editorialize all they want, but they then MUST be held accountable for any and all content posted to the site, Just like the Nexus is. The point of the exception within the law/s is to protect "public" spaces and allow for freedom of speech, to protect those spaces from persecution.

 

If the government or group attempts to cite Twitter for allowing someone to post unarguably inflammatory or "inappropriate" content, Twitter claims it is a "public forum" and thus exempt within the law. They then proceed to censor content that they alone feel is inappropriate and when told that this is a breach of "freedom of speech" they claim that they are a private company and can do as they please. So which is it? You CANNOT have it both ways!

 

---

 

You still make a false equivalence. I would never condone or allow either my wife or any of my children to be compromised in that way. For the children that are no longer directly under my care or supervision, I hope I have raised them well enough that they know better than to be in that position in the first place.

 

But if one of them did partake in some behaviour and they did give permission for someone else to own or disseminate that material, then that is THEIR responsibility and the repercussions are theirs to endure. Of course I would try to help or comfort them, if the repercussions were bad, but I wouldn't be a good parent if I stopped them from reaping what they themselves sowed.

 

Privacy laws are NOT the same as censorship. If you choose to share something with another, then that is on you alone, not the other party.

[colourwheel]

 

Twitter and others ARE claiming exemption from any responsibility for what is posted on their site/s under the guise of being "public forums". THAT is the point! Of course, as PRIVATE companies they can censor and editorialize all they want, but they then MUST be held accountable for any and all content posted to the site, Just like the Nexus is. The point of the exception within the law/s is to protect "public" spaces and allow for freedom of speech, to protect those spaces from persecution.

 

Despite whatever laws are protecting them from liability for content uploaded on their platforms, despite what the original purpose of those laws were created for, it is still a platform that is privately owned. They don't need to claim any exemptions for responsibility. The reality is, if a platform like Twitter or Facebook or any platform that has large scale traffic suddenly was to be held responsible for everything and anything uploaded to them, the platform would just eventually die out and cease to exist. No one would want to operate or host something that has large scale traffic and manually moderate everything that is being uploaded in fear of potentially being held liable. If your objective is to basically get rid of these social media platforms all together, then to hold them liable would be the way to go because then suddenly over night, Facebook, twitter, YouTube, etc... would all close down in an instant.

Edited January 16, 2021 by colourwheel

[Perraine]

 

 

Twitter and others ARE claiming exemption from any responsibility for what is posted on their site/s under the guise of being "public forums". THAT is the point! Of course, as PRIVATE companies they can censor and editorialize all they want, but they then MUST be held accountable for any and all content posted to the site, Just like the Nexus is. The point of the exception within the law/s is to protect "public" spaces and allow for freedom of speech, to protect those spaces from persecution.

 

Despite whatever laws are protecting them from liability for content uploaded on their platforms, despite what the original purpose of those laws were created for, it is still a platform that is privately owned. They don't need to claim any exemptions for responsibility. The reality is, if a platform like Twitter or Facebook or any platform that has large scale traffic suddenly was to be held responsible for everything and anything uploaded to them, the platform would just eventually die out and cease to exist. No one would want to operate or host something that has large scale traffic and manually moderate everything that is being uploaded in fear of potentially being held liable. If your objective is to basically get rid of these social media platforms all together, then to hold them liable would be the way to go because then suddenly over night, Facebook, twitter, YouTube, etc... would all close down in an instant.

 

This is naive and actually comes across as somewhat disingenuous on your part. These companies are far to large and widely used to collapse that quickly or easily. And I have nothing against them claiming exemption for that very reason. They are now, whether we like it or not, the "public squares" for the modern age, with a vast array of content, not just "problematic" content.

 

But they CANNOT be allowed to editorialize or censor at their own will and whim in that case. That is a breach of freedom of speech and cannot be tolerated. And no, Not obfuscating obviously illegal content such as child pornography. The very concept of censoring freedom of speech is almost the epitome of evil, beaten only by certain things such as that mentioned above.

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

Twitter and others ARE claiming exemption from any responsibility for what is posted on their site/s under the guise of being "public forums". THAT is the point! Of course, as PRIVATE companies they can censor and editorialize all they want, but they then MUST be held accountable for any and all content posted to the site, Just like the Nexus is. The point of the exception within the law/s is to protect "public" spaces and allow for freedom of speech, to protect those spaces from persecution.

 

Despite whatever laws are protecting them from liability for content uploaded on their platforms, despite what the original purpose of those laws were created for, it is still a platform that is privately owned. They don't need to claim any exemptions for responsibility. The reality is, if a platform like Twitter or Facebook or any platform that has large scale traffic suddenly was to be held responsible for everything and anything uploaded to them, the platform would just eventually die out and cease to exist. No one would want to operate or host something that has large scale traffic and manually moderate everything that is being uploaded in fear of potentially being held liable. If your objective is to basically get rid of these social media platforms all together, then to hold them liable would be the way to go because then suddenly over night, Facebook, twitter, YouTube, etc... would all close down in an instant.

 

This is naive and actually comes across as somewhat disingenuous on your part. These companies are far to large and widely used to collapse that quickly or easily. And I have nothing against them claiming exemption for that very reason. They are now, whether we like it or not, the "public squares" for the modern age, with a vast array of content, not just "problematic" content.

 

But they CANNOT be allowed to editorialize or censor at their own will and whim in that case. That is a breach of freedom of speech and cannot be tolerated. And no, Not obfuscating obviously illegal content such as child pornography. The very concept of censoring freedom of speech is almost the epitome of evil, beaten only by certain things such as that mentioned above.

 

Trouble becomes then: Who decides what is 'acceptable'? Or, since they are claiming to be the modern equivalent of the 'public square', should they need be permitted to censor anything at all? Should they leave the National Socialists rantings up there? The white supremacists? The Flat Earthers? Or any other conspiracy theories?? How about folks preaching overthrow of the government? (non-violent of course, as advocating for violent overthrow is already illegal....)

 

One mans' poison, is another mans truth..... So, who is going to decide what is truth for all??

[colourwheel]

 

 

 

Twitter and others ARE claiming exemption from any responsibility for what is posted on their site/s under the guise of being "public forums". THAT is the point! Of course, as PRIVATE companies they can censor and editorialize all they want, but they then MUST be held accountable for any and all content posted to the site, Just like the Nexus is. The point of the exception within the law/s is to protect "public" spaces and allow for freedom of speech, to protect those spaces from persecution.

 

Despite whatever laws are protecting them from liability for content uploaded on their platforms, despite what the original purpose of those laws were created for, it is still a platform that is privately owned. They don't need to claim any exemptions for responsibility. The reality is, if a platform like Twitter or Facebook or any platform that has large scale traffic suddenly was to be held responsible for everything and anything uploaded to them, the platform would just eventually die out and cease to exist. No one would want to operate or host something that has large scale traffic and manually moderate everything that is being uploaded in fear of potentially being held liable. If your objective is to basically get rid of these social media platforms all together, then to hold them liable would be the way to go because then suddenly over night, Facebook, twitter, YouTube, etc... would all close down in an instant.

 

 

This is naive and actually comes across as somewhat disingenuous on your part. These companies are far to large and widely used to collapse that quickly or easily. And I have nothing against them claiming exemption for that very reason. They are now, whether we like it or not, the "public squares" for the modern age, with a vast array of content, not just "problematic" content.

 

I really don't appreciate your tone and how your trying to debate this subject. You have already lost this debate in my opinion by calling me naive and disingenuous. With that said, these private corporations that offer social media platforms are nothing more then products of their business. Facebook and Twitter can all disappear in an instant just like Napster and megaupload have. Just because you are claiming them to be "public squares" for the modern age doesn't mean they are vitally necessary to exist. Before Facebook and Twitter users would use MySpace, before MySpace there was Friendster, before that was Blogger, etc... No matter how big you might think an internet platform is they can all virtually disappear in an instant, no pun intended.

Edited January 16, 2021 by colourwheel

[Perraine]

 

 

 

 

Twitter and others ARE claiming exemption from any responsibility for what is posted on their site/s under the guise of being "public forums". THAT is the point! Of course, as PRIVATE companies they can censor and editorialize all they want, but they then MUST be held accountable for any and all content posted to the site, Just like the Nexus is. The point of the exception within the law/s is to protect "public" spaces and allow for freedom of speech, to protect those spaces from persecution.

 

Despite whatever laws are protecting them from liability for content uploaded on their platforms, despite what the original purpose of those laws were created for, it is still a platform that is privately owned. They don't need to claim any exemptions for responsibility. The reality is, if a platform like Twitter or Facebook or any platform that has large scale traffic suddenly was to be held responsible for everything and anything uploaded to them, the platform would just eventually die out and cease to exist. No one would want to operate or host something that has large scale traffic and manually moderate everything that is being uploaded in fear of potentially being held liable. If your objective is to basically get rid of these social media platforms all together, then to hold them liable would be the way to go because then suddenly over night, Facebook, twitter, YouTube, etc... would all close down in an instant.

 

This is naive and actually comes across as somewhat disingenuous on your part. These companies are far to large and widely used to collapse that quickly or easily. And I have nothing against them claiming exemption for that very reason. They are now, whether we like it or not, the "public squares" for the modern age, with a vast array of content, not just "problematic" content.

 

But they CANNOT be allowed to editorialize or censor at their own will and whim in that case. That is a breach of freedom of speech and cannot be tolerated. And no, Not obfuscating obviously illegal content such as child pornography. The very concept of censoring freedom of speech is almost the epitome of evil, beaten only by certain things such as that mentioned above.

 

Trouble becomes then: Who decides what is 'acceptable'? Or, since they are claiming to be the modern equivalent of the 'public square', should they need be permitted to censor anything at all? Should they leave the National Socialists rantings up there? The white supremacists? The Flat Earthers? Or any other conspiracy theories?? How about folks preaching overthrow of the government? (non-violent of course, as advocating for violent overthrow is already illegal....)

 

One mans' poison, is another mans truth..... So, who is going to decide what is truth for all??

 

Every individual decides that for themselves. People read or listen to what they wish and "choose" which "truth" they prefer. Obviously outside factors such as social, political or economic factors may influence that choice, but it MUST be allowed to happen. And it cannot happen if even one voice is silenced. I can't understand how that is so hard to accept?!?!?

 

Yes, There are certain compromises that have been made to this doctrine, for instance the type of material mentioned above by me, but you cannot ( IMO ) go any further than that, for exactly the reason you gave! One persons evil IS another's "truth", but how can you decide which to believe or support if you aren't allowed to hear both?

 

So for the most part, no they should NOT censor the content in any way.

 

@colourwheel - I'm sorry you feel that way, but as yet you haven't actually provided any cogent or valid arguments, so I'm afraid I don't see this debate as ended. There has NEVER been such massive, some might even say all encompassing, platforms like Twitter or Facebook in the past. Yes there were predecessors (I still remember chatting to people on BBS's and using "news readers" to view content ) but you cannot, in all honesty, compare those to the likes of Twitter.

 

Now that's not to say that they won't some day be surpassed, if say Google decided to launch a platform under their own name with features like Twitter, there is probably nothing that could defeat them. But any platform, whether it be Twitter, Facebbok or some future incarnation, must still be held to the same free speech standards IMO.

[colourwheel]

 

@colourwheel - I'm sorry you feel that way, but as yet you haven't actually provided any cogent or valid arguments, so I'm afraid I don't see this debate as ended.

 

This debate ended far before you started making personal insults. Maybe you should try to read over the rules for debates before you endlessly keep trying to convince with the "I am right and you are wrong" persuasion tactic.

[xrayy]

i recommend also to read this article as a knowledge base if not already done :wink:

 

the complexity of this multi layered topic should be not underestimated. at least i'm sure everyone who claims to have a simple answer should think twice before posting. in my opinion there can be no simple answer because censorship is treated differently from state to state and country to country. the ability to keep immunity depends on many factors. for example how widespread a social media platform is accessible.

you can debate this from a worldwide point of view, from a country pov or a platform pov and many more pov's.