It doesn't matter what you call yourself. That isn't the issue where the "publisher" definition in reference to Section 230 is concerned.
You can be a publisher in one instance and not a publisher in another. It isn't one or the other, all or nothing.
Take the Wall Street Journal, for example. Obviously, they are a publisher. They publish shit all the time and use full editorial discretion as part of their business model. They pay people to write articles and pay editors to review the content before its published. No sane person could argue that they aren't a publisher in the sense that they are a newspaper and publish news, opinion, articles, and stories.
However, on their website, in their comments section, they are not a publisher with respect to Section 230. They can not be held liable for some dumbfuck posting libelous shit on their comments section.
If the Wall Street Journal allows comments, and this comments are posted without review for "truthiness" (reviews outside of ToS violations) and those comments are not editted by the WSJ, then the WSJ is not liable for the information contained in that post. That's how Section 230 works.
Do you think that it should be allowed that @system could be sued if some dumb fuckin' nigger posts some stupid fuckin' shit that can be determined as libel on this site? Do you understand the consequences of every site on the internet if that were the case?
Niggers be pushing the Section 230 bullshit, and insist that social media are publishers because they moderate their site for ToS violations, but if that were the case, every social media site would have to review every post before it could be made public for fear of a lawsuit. It would destroy the internet and leas to massive censorship, and shit like license requirements to post anything to any website.
FreeinTX -1 points 2.7 years ago
It doesn't matter what you call yourself. That isn't the issue where the "publisher" definition in reference to Section 230 is concerned.
You can be a publisher in one instance and not a publisher in another. It isn't one or the other, all or nothing.
Take the Wall Street Journal, for example. Obviously, they are a publisher. They publish shit all the time and use full editorial discretion as part of their business model. They pay people to write articles and pay editors to review the content before its published. No sane person could argue that they aren't a publisher in the sense that they are a newspaper and publish news, opinion, articles, and stories.
However, on their website, in their comments section, they are not a publisher with respect to Section 230. They can not be held liable for some dumbfuck posting libelous shit on their comments section.
If the Wall Street Journal allows comments, and this comments are posted without review for "truthiness" (reviews outside of ToS violations) and those comments are not editted by the WSJ, then the WSJ is not liable for the information contained in that post. That's how Section 230 works.
Do you think that it should be allowed that @system could be sued if some dumb fuckin' nigger posts some stupid fuckin' shit that can be determined as libel on this site? Do you understand the consequences of every site on the internet if that were the case?
Niggers be pushing the Section 230 bullshit, and insist that social media are publishers because they moderate their site for ToS violations, but if that were the case, every social media site would have to review every post before it could be made public for fear of a lawsuit. It would destroy the internet and leas to massive censorship, and shit like license requirements to post anything to any website.