[kashunstva]

One of the key differences, though, is that there is no biased amplification algorithm sitting on top of the Sharpie-generated hate speech posters. If vendors don’t want to be in the business of policing content then they should stop differentially amplifying content. You can’t manipulate the visibility of content and then claim no responsibility over what end-users see.

[suzzer99]

Yes, this is key.

Also if you run a platform that ends up being used to say live-stream mass murders, it seems pretty reasonable that you would want to ban that. Ultimately companies are run by people. No one wants to work for a company that becomes a platform for that kind of horror.

[germinalphrase]

Yes, but - you know - someone works for Live Leak.

[sasaf5]

Ranking should incur the same consequences as authoring. Don't want liability? Let it stack chronologically.

[spullara]

Depending on the location of the poster the host of that poster would be amplifying the hate speech. For instance, let's say it was on a billboard on a busy highway. Are they now responsible for it if they don't take it down quickly?

[cratermoon]

What if every time you used a sharpie and poster board to write hate speech, it was automatically uploaded to the internet and shared with anyone who followed the Sanford company?

[spullara]

That isn't how social media works.