|
|
|
|
|
|
by karatestomp
2308 days ago
|
|
|
> If I invent a machine that passes out six thousand flyers per second, and allow people to feed text into it at will, then yes, it is insane to describe these as my "speech". I'm not following how having a machine do the work absolves the owner of responsibility. It seems like the same kind of "normal thing, but with a computer!" that folks in tech circles usually mock when it shows up on patent applications or when someone decides we need a new law to cover something that's already covered by existing laws, simply because now it's with a computer. If you manage to replace all the components of an ordinary publisher with robots, seems to me the owner of those robots ought to be treated just like an ordinary publisher. Accepting, storing, reproducing, and distributing as broadly as possible (oh and don't forget slapping your own ads on) others' work sure seems like publishing to me. |
|
|
The fact that it's happening on a computer isn't the important part, and indeed if that were the only difference it would be a ridiculous argument. The important part is that the operator of the machine has never seen the content.
It's unreasonable to be liable for content you aren't aware of, and thankfully the status quo is still that you are not (outside of a few unfortunate cases). Effectively most of the internet couldn't exist if this protection were eliminated. Hacker News might not be able to exist. If you were liable for everything any user might possibly say, regardless of whether or not you notice it, would you run a discussion forum like this? A web host? A messaging app?
Once you're aware of e.g. illegal content, of course you should be liable.