Being a publisher vs. being a platform and the ramifications for Facebook and others

[L84Cabo]

So in the legal world, I'm learning, that there is apparently a difference between being a platform vs. being a publisher. Think of the phone company. They provide a platform for people to communicate but they invest zero energy in monitoring or trying to control what people talk about across their platform. As such, they bear no responsibility for what gets said...like if somebody threatens somebody, issues of slander, etc.

Being a publisher, however, is a apparently a different story. If the entity controls, monitors and manipulates the content across their platform, that makes them a publisher...and Publishers bear a legal responsibility for the content that is added to their base platform. So they can be held responsible for things like copyright violations, slander, etc. Anyone care to speculate how many slanderous comments are posted per minute across Facebook? Or how many copyrighted photos are posted?

So guess how Cuck Zuck responded when he was asked this week by Congress, "Do you agree now that Facebook and other social media platforms are not neutral platforms but bear some responsibility for the content?"

Zuckerberg replied, "I agree that we're responsible for the content." And he punctuated it later by admitting that Silicone Valley was, "extremely left leaning," which is about as far from being "neutral" as you can get. And in so doing, he may have opened up Facebook to a whole host of lawsuits.

This could also have relevance to YouTube which clearly sensors and controls the content across it's base platform, much like Facebook does. And thus elevates itself from simply being a platform to being a publisher.

Article here...
Shapiro Tweets About Zuckerberg's Testimony. Internet Melts Down.

And Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act here...
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - Wikipedia

Read More