[akersten]

Positions like what? And no, banning radicals from their platform for violating their terms of service is not a position.

Even if they were responsible, it's still legal to lie. You don't see pseudoscience websites being taken down because they are objectively false either.

[goatinaboat]

It’s OK for the NYT to attempt to “prevent another Trump situation”. They have an editor and that person is legally responsible for what they publish. They don’t even pretend to be non-partisan. But Google takes a position then hides behind “common carrier” status. It’s not reasonable that they can pick and choose. Either they’re the phone company or they’re a publisher. It’s their right to be either of course, but they must choose.

Similarly for Twitter.

[root_axis]

> It’s not reasonable that they can pick and choose. Either they’re the phone company or they’re a publisher. It’s their right to be either of course, but they must choose.

This is 100% wrong, the opposite is true. The law explicitly protects website operators from being liable for content posted by 3rd parties while simultaneously granting them the explicit freedom to curate content that they deem objectionable.

[pyrale]

No content on Google is posted there by 3rd parties. Google does select what is displayed and, in the case of snippets, they go out of their traditional way to promote that content.

[root_axis]

The use of the word "post" is my own colloquially imprecise language, the law actually states

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

So content indexed by google absolutely falls under the definition of "provided by another information content provider"

[pyrale]

Providing links is indeed within this definition. However, cards go beyond that: by selecting one out of the many results promoting it and possibly alterating its meaning by selecting which parts, and how it is displayed goes far beyond merely displaying content provided by others.

Of course, there is plenty of room for google attorneys to wiggle, but in the end the objective for them is to 1) give credibility to a source and 2) to get the benefits of being the providers of information.

[akersten]

Common carrier and safe harbor are 100% separate and distinct concepts. The same way that a forum could have a theme ("political party X posts only") and still be allowed to remove illegal content is Safe Harbor (both curation at their discretion and no responsibility for illegal posts) - and I don't see how one could be against that - and Google is nowhere near that, whatever "positions" you envision them to have taken.

Google and other tech never claimed to be common carriers, and even internet service providers have been cleared of that status - barely anyone is legally required to transmit without discretion (it's pretty much just phone companies). So why make it about Google and Twitter, and start with ISPs?

[goatinaboat]

Stay tuned for the next batch of revelations from Project Veritas.