Social Media Platofrm or Publisher

Photograph Credit: Google Images

The ongoing debate over whether social media companies like Facebook and Twitter should be considered platforms or publishers is actually starting to heat up. In fact, things are getting so hot that the White House has stepped into the heart of the debate, suggesting that the time has finally come for companies like Facebook and Twitter to admit that they are really publishers hiding behind all the legal protections granted to them as platforms.

In short, if Facebook or Twitter is going to be making editorial decisions about what appears on their platforms, then they are really acting as publishers. If they are making decisions virtually censoring sure types of content, banning sure individuals from their platforms, or somehow throttling or blocking certain types of content by using algorithms, and so they are no different from traditional publishers like newspapers or magazines.

Publisher vs. platform

The deviation betwixt "platform" and "publisher" might audio like semantics, or a bunch of techno mumbo-jumbo, but it actually carries huge legal implications for companies similar Facebook and Twitter. You see, every bit a "platform," these social media giants can hibernate behind all the legal protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Human action. They can't exist sued, for instance, if any slanderous content appears on their website.

While tech companies still have a responsibility of intendance and duty to remove whatsoever content that violates federal criminal laws, they can't be held be responsible if some crazy guy or gal starts spreading misinformation or trafficking in conspiracy theories. However, POOF! All of the legal protections are removed once they are considered to exist publishers and not platforms.

Examples of publishers and platforms

The easiest mode to think nigh this dichotomy is by thinking about paper companies similar the New York Times or Philadelphia Inquirer. These companies make editorial decisions about what news to publish, have editorial boards, publish op-ed pieces, and make every effort possible to fact-bank check (and fact-cheque once again) every single thing they publish. If they publish a slanderous or defamatory commodity about a high-contour individual, they tin expect to be sued in courtroom.

Now, think well-nigh companies like Verizon, AT&T or Comcast. These are platforms, in that they primarily serve to facilitate communication and distribute information. They can't "ban" you from using their services, even if you are trafficking in all kinds of conspiracy theories. If y'all desire to talk about "false flag" conspiracy events with your crazy uncle on the phone, nobody is going to block or throttle that conversation. Y'all won't get a letter of the alphabet from AT&T saying that you are no longer a customer.

So is Facebook a publisher or platform?

Using the analogies above, social media companies are basically saying that they are acting much more like Comcast than the Philadelphia Inquirer. As a event, they should be afforded all the legal protections of Section 230. But that doesn't really hold water, when y'all consider that Mark Zuckerberg has even admitted that Facebook sometimes acts as BOTH a platform and publisher. And, as numerous U.South. politicians have pointed out, Facebook has a notable bias towards liberal, left wing and Democrat-friendly political ideologies, as well equally a notable bias confronting bourgeois, right fly and Republican-friendly political ideologies. In this regard, Facebook is much like the Philadelphia Inquirer deciding to support a particular candidate for political office – this is something that publishers exercise all the time, but that platforms do not.

And don't forget about Net Neutrality

Making things even more complicated is the fact that the big social media giants seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to problems like Net Neutrality. Facebook, for example, wants to be sure that none of its content is blocked, throttled or moved to the "Internet slow lane" by whatever broadband provider. Twitter talks a big game near how important it is to protect freedom of speech and diversity of thought when it comes to Net Neutrality, but and then appears to adopt a dissimilar tack entirely when it comes to censoring, swell down on or banning content.

Tilting towards publisher

So it's time for the big social media giants to finally choose which side they are on. They can't exist both a publisher and platform at the same time, no thing what kind of legal weasel words they choose to use to justify their decisions. It doesn't affair if it's a homo or a machine algorithm making the editorial decision – if y'all are blocking or censoring some content that doesn't agree with your values and viewpoints, then you are a publisher. Menses. It's time for social media companies to wake up to that reality and be prepared for the consequences.

Share this post