Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The reason they're not a publisher for purposes of civil liability is because of section 230.
They still retain constitutional rights of a publisher.
You can separate the two.
Odd.
That is a beautiful piece of art. I cannot fathom why anyone would get entangled in ordering its removal. Not only a silly thing to do but not even good optics.
It is rather ironic I can remember people attempting to protect graffiti on public land (101 freeway) when I lived in LA in the 90's. I think some of it is still there if it has not has someone else try and tag over it.
Why can't you separate them? Liability for defamation is all statutory. It doesn't override the constitution.No, you can't. Both are legal concepts, and sorry, if you get one, you can expect the other.
Either the shit is yours, or it isn't. What you are trying to do is both legally and physically impossible.
Why can't you separate them? Liability for defamation is all statutory. It doesn't override the constitution.
Dumbass what someone says on twitter is NOT twitter publishing anything.That's the argument you've been making.
You keep saying that social media sites say they're not publishers (which is barely half true) and so they're not publishers and therefore no first amendment concerns.
Social media platforms are publishers because they publish content. They're not publishers for purposes of liability for civil lawsuits only. That's merely a statutory definition.
Which is why if you passed a law saying a newspaper has to publish an oped from a candidate, it would be a violation of the first amendment even if you gave that newspaper immunity from lawsuits for doing so.
What a bunch of nonsense.Because the liability waiver was designed for actual publishers, not social media, which by its own definition is not a publisher. Only you are claiming the opposite to prop up your argument.
How do you define "publisher"?Dumbass what someone says on twitter is NOT twitter publishing anything.
What a bunch of nonsense.
For starters, the liability waiver was designed for any provider of "interactive computer services" which sure as hell applies to social media companies.
Second, the company's own definition is 100% irrelevant. What matters is what they're doing. There's no controversy here. They're taking user content, formatting it and putting it on their own servers where they make it available for anyone to see. Whether that makes them a publisher, a republisher, a distributor or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant. What it does is make it so that they have rights under the first amendment as to whether they want to engage with that speech.
No, you claim protection from section 230 because you are a provider of interactive computer service.They claim protection via not being a publisher and protection for being a publisher, sorry but you can't do that, no matter how hard you try to justify it to satisfy your censoring jack off fantasies.
No, you claim protection from section 230 because you are a provider of interactive computer service.
That doesn't mean you aren't a publisher. It means the section of law gives you immunity for the liability of that content.
No, I see right through you and your BS.You're confused.
And yet idiots like this poster and his leftist buddies are trying as hard as they can to overturn the first amendment, along with the 2nd. This poster makes a clown out of himself with every deranged post that he makes.What a bunch of nonsense.
For starters, the liability waiver was designed for any provider of "interactive computer services" which sure as hell applies to social media companies.
Second, the company's own definition is 100% irrelevant. What matters is what they're doing. There's no controversy here. They're taking user content, formatting it and putting it on their own servers where they make it available for anyone to see. Whether that makes them a publisher, a republisher, a distributor or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant. What it does is make it so that they have rights under the first amendment as to whether they want to engage with that speech.
They claim protection under section 230. If they could claim that they weren't publishers, and if that claim would make that true, they wouldn't need section 230 in the first place.And they extended that protection to social media because THEY THEMSELVES claim they are not publishers of the content on their sites.
You can't claim not to be a publisher on one hand, and then (actually you, not them) demand protections as one.
You are wrong.
That makes it sound like a liberal came up with that so that they can have it both ways. Utter nonsense, just lie all of your postings.They claim protection under section 230. If they could claim that they weren't publishers, and if that claim would make that true, they wouldn't need section 230 in the first place.
They're not claiming that they aren't publishers, they're just claiming that they can't be sued as a publisher for civil purposes because that's what the law states.
Read this article and try to understand the issue. You really need some education.,That makes it sound like a liberal came up with that so that they can have it both ways. Utter nonsense, just lie all of your postings.
As stated above, a lie paid for by those like you who do not have the ability to think for themselves.Read this article and try to understand the issue. You really need some education.,
Publisher or Platform? It Doesn't Matter.
“You have to choose: are you a platform or a publisher?”It’s the question that makes us pull out our hair and roll our eyes. It’s the question that makes us want to shout from the rooftops “IT DOESN’T MATTER. YOU DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE”We’ll say it plainly here: there is no legal significance to...www.eff.org
They claim protection under section 230. If they could claim that they weren't publishers, and if that claim would make that true, they wouldn't need section 230 in the first place.
They're not claiming that they aren't publishers, they're just claiming that they can't be sued as a publisher for civil purposes because that's what the law states.
It’s not. You just don’t understand the legality of the issue. Show me where they deny they have any first amendment rights as publishers. You can’t. They merely say they can’t be held liable under civil tort for the content of other users.That's contradictory and cannot happen in reality.
And again, only YOU are making the statement they are publishers, they deny it.
Your contributions to this thread have been little more than emotional nonsense.As stated above, a lie paid for by those like you who do not have the ability to think for themselves.
The left always pays for someone to publish just what they want and you lap it up like a dog laps up scraps from their owner.
BTW, who has ever heard of this platform? Utter nonsense.
When you stick the topic, which is apparently never going to happen, I will consider it. As is, my only priority is to dispel the lies you seem intent on spreading. According to you gods the social media, you are spreading false information and should be banned.Your contributions to this thread have been little more than emotional nonsense.
Try discussing the issue and not just bitching and moaning.
