| It is a big weakness, that the companies cannot be force to state if they are acting as a platform or as a publisher. I think companies are way too power full right now, and the ability to shift position, sometimes they are a platform and sometimes a publisher.
Companies should not be allowed to "shift" depending on how asks the question.
I think a normal human would be forced to answer (in court), if they said different answer to different people.
But these companies get away with it. Much of the conditions that has helped shape the current situation might shaping new efforts as well.. Support and client questions etc will probably be avoid as much as possible.
Example do NOT explain why a BAN was issued, give as little chance to appeal as possible, and avoid all discussions about why something was done.
Just say that they broke a rule, do not mention what rules or where in the text / video the "crime" was committed. Appeal process is very expensive, and if a company gave reason for example when they did a BAN that would sometime cause the banned person to appeal.
If they stated why, a person in USA could appeal using the common justice system and perhaps claim in-justice, or lying
(I guess a person might have a chance if the company did not apply its rule consistently, or if they could prove a lie) If they can avoid to given any reason for it, there is no way they will keep any rules well defined, it gives them much more power if the rules could be flexed a bit. I think the "common justice system" with defender, accuser and judge would be much better.
A court also has to keep record of decisions and reasons.
But I think no company would do that, it would limit their control/power and probably be expensive as well. I still think the companies have a bit too much power, and in a way wonder if they could be forced to solve "justice" better than now. |