| > 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. |