[jenwkejnwjkef]

I'm not sure why anybody falls for the frankly absurd idea that social media sites are platforms and not publishers. They choose what to show you, just like the NYT or any other traditional publisher. The only difference is who does the choosing---algorithms or humans. But that, to me, is just a logistical detail and shouldn't have an effect on the distinction between publisher and platform. To think that Facebook and other companies act as merely connectors between viewpoints and are really just platforms for free speech is ridiculous.

From the article, no, Facebook did not "fail to prevent its platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence;" they published content which foments division and incites offline violence. The distinction is important.

[MrMan]

I agree with this. FB has succeeded in their marketing effort to be perceived, even by their detractors, as somehow separate from "mainstream media" when in fact they are one of the biggest media companies on the planet.

[JakeTheAndroid]

Facebook doesn't create the content that you share. Is Google a publisher because you have a gmail account? What we are talking about at its core is a platform that allows you to talk to people you know or might want to know. Is it objectionable that my text messages are displayed in terms of arrival time? What if I want it sorted alphabetically by contact but the SMS app won't let me? And you can still send all the same information to people you know off of Facebook or on peoples walls or through messenger. Facebook doesn't create the content, you do. So how are they publishers?

Also, there is no meaningful difference between "publisher" and "platform" here[0]. So the entire conversation is built on a faulty premise.

What specific regulations does the NYT have for showing you news? What specific regulations does Google have for promoting different sites? The NYT gets to decide what they report on, they have no obligation to show you "the other side". How is that any different than the FB algo?

Now, their lack of moderation is a different discussion worth having. We can argue that it's harder to moderate at scale and be forgiving, or we can say that doesn't matter and that they still have the obligation all the same.

[0] eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter

[jenwkejnwjkef]

It doesn't matter who makes the content. Take for example, the New Yorker, which curates short stories and poetry not written by their own authors/editors. If they were to publish something inciting violence or otherwise illegal/immoral, they can't just throw their hands in the air and say "it wasn't me!", legally nor socially.

Besides, I'm talking mostly on a social aspect rather than a legal one. I'm not a lawyer. But too often do we give Facebook a pass since it doesn't make the content, it only curates it. The curation is automated at a massive scale by AIs, and is done for each user, every day, but it is still undeniably curation.

An example of a platform is if the user does their own curation. E.g. old Instagram. You got everything posted by everyone you follow, in chronological order. Now Instagram will change the feed order and time-delay/shadowban posts, making it, in my view, a publisher. Your SMS example is a platform since you chose to have your SMS's sorted by time.

[JakeTheAndroid]

Well in your case with the New Yorker, they actually review and actively publish the information. Where is the peer reviewed check from Facebook? Where do these status' imply that Facebook supports and endorses them?

And what is the social difference between a publisher and a platform in terms of expected social responsibility? This distinction only now exists because people attempted to use a legal definition that isn't real. So, again, I think this entire line of thinking falls flat upon inception.

> But too often do we give Facebook a pass since it doesn't make the content, it only curates it.

But that is true, no? Do we honestly believe that between ML and a real person Facebook is validating and approving every comment on Facebook? I sure don't. Do we believe that Google is publisher because mailing lists can exist or because they allow an email to be sent while blocking perceived malicious emails? Is that not some form of validation that happens that we could imply makes Google a publisher of every email sent from GSuite?

I just don't agree that an algorithm is undeniably curation in the same sense as a newspaper. The process isn't the same, the intended outcome isn't the same, and the inherent approval of the content isn't the same. So while they may be like conceptually, they aren't the same functionally whether you measure it by the spirit or letter of the systems.

The idea of user moderation vs service based moderation is purely a feature set. If we don't like that feature set or it doesn't meet the needs of the way we use the service, the service sucks at it's job. The correct solution isn't to try and have all these convoluted/philosophical discussion around where to draw the line. The solution is to have a service that does it better get the userbase. Today people like Facebook because it already achieved a wide enough userbase, which lead to default integration into other services. It seems we are willing to trade convenience for expectations, which is an issue for the user, not the service.

Now, if we want to say that they practice anti-competitive market strategies and are monopolies, I can entertain that argument. It still does not require this discussion at all.

[jenwkejnwjkef]

> they actually review and actively publish the information

They do it to save their own ass. Since they publish it, they are responsible. Facebook should either review the all content they publish, or they should stop being a publisher.

> Do we honestly believe that between ML and a real person Facebook is validating and approving every comment on Facebook?

I never said that; here's my point: if, say, the New Yorker replaced their human editors with AI ones, then the outcome is the same and they are still publishers. Alternatively, say they made human-run personal curations---each subscriber gets an individually-tailored set of articles which are suggested---then they are obviously still publishers. So if they replace these human curators with AI, are they still publishers? Because that would be what Facebook is today.

And on your Gmail point, Google is not a publisher, it acts like a phone service. You send your email, the recipient receives it, unconditionally, without modification. Facebook actively shadow-bans, time-delays and puts fact-check warnings on posts. Since that show they disapprove of some posts, it kind of implies that they approve of all the others.

[JakeTheAndroid]

> the New Yorker replaced their human editors with AI ones, then the outcome is the same and they are still publishers.

Okay, but being a publisher doesn't MEAN anything. Not socially, not legally. And MY point was that the New Yorker makes it explicit that what they post is approved and endorsed by them. It's IMPLIED.

On Facebook, where is the IMPLIED ownership of your comments on Facebook? Where is the delay between your status and some form of review to endorse or support the status? That never happens, and I don't think anyone on Facebook believes that personal status updates are reflective of Facebooks ethos.

Thats the chasm between a news outlet and a service built around user generated content.

The New Yorker gets submissions or requests the use of different stories or whatever. They are EXPLICITLY seeking this information out to display on their site. Facebook does not.

> And on your Gmail point, Google is not a publisher, it acts like a phone service. You send your email, the recipient receives it, unconditionally, without modification.

Not always true. Headers can be modified, you might not have the proper records in place for people to get your emails, or if they don't like or trust your attachment. Google creates a barrier that must be overcome and can limit your direct person to person communication.

> Facebook actively shadow-bans, time-delays and puts fact-check warnings on posts. Since that show they disapprove of some posts, it kind of implies that they approve of all the others.

Okay, so your point is ANYONE that moderates content is now a publisher? So every BBS or forum is a publisher? Is Weebly a publisher? Is Github a publisher? I mean, I just want to understand where this line is drawn.