Hacker News

points by SideQuark 2 days ago | 0 comments

Simply Google “is social media a publisher” and you’ll learn it is not, not even close, by any legal definition.

Therefore you could save all your other questions and statements.

OK, fine. But they are also an ad network, which absolutely acts as a publisher. I think they should be liable for the revenue they bring in from knowingly fraudulent ads.

Legal definitions can should change in order to keep up with society and technology.

[–] SideQuark 2 days ago

No where does it say they know which ads are fraudulent and continue that particular ad.

It’s nuts how many people simply don’t read or think.

Walmart can say, for example, they know they’ll lose 3B to theft. That doesn’t mean they are wanting it, or allowing it, or know exactly which item will be stolen when and where. It means, given their scale, and from evidence they gather after the fact, this is an estimate of what happens when they have so many locations.

Now go read carefully, and don’t make stuff up about what you read, and think about the facts presented.

[–] erentz 2 days ago

You're just responding here by saying "by law they are not thing X" in response to people who are saying "maybe the law should be different because they sure act like thing X".

[–] SideQuark 2 days ago

No. Did you read the law? You wanting them to be a publisher because you don’t understand the difference between a legal use of a word and a popular use of a word does not make them a publisher any more than the right to bear arms means I can go shirtless.

Publisher, in the legal sense, has a long history, and content providers are not that any more the the word arm in the legal sense means human arms.

[–] GrinningFool 1 day ago

But that legal meaning of the word can be changed by changing the laws. Seems that's what's under discussion here.

[–] SideQuark 1 day ago

This sub thread literally starts with “how are they not a publisher?”, not with “we should change the legal definition of publisher.” As such, it would be reasonable for people to know the colloquial vague idea of “publisher” and the legal term are not identical.

[–] otterley 2 days ago

When social media chooses what to display in a user’s feed—even if the content is 3P generated— then it starts to look an awful lot like a publisher. Would you consider a newspaper not to be a publisher of its own op-Ed page? How about the old Reader’s Digest?

[–] SideQuark 2 days ago

So a comic book store, by choosing what to put in the front of a store, is a publisher. Me, by choosing what Christmas decorations to put out front, is a publisher.

I wish people would simply learn to read a little law instead of routinely not understanding simple concepts.

[–] otterley 1 day ago

I am an attorney.

Your analogies don’t hold. There’s no act of content reproduction (the essence of publication), as there is with the examples I provided. DMCA is about copyrightable subject matter.

So how about you knock it off with the attitude?

[–] SideQuark 1 day ago

Good, expert attorney. Then tell us: is Meta a publisher under the law? If not, why not?

I’m guessing Meta and the public both have attorneys, and I suspect all those attorneys also know the answer.

[–] otterley 1 day ago

You make it sound like there's a cut and dry answer to this. There isn't. Moreover, not all kinds of content are alike. There's content that Meta itself produces, and there is content that 3Ps produce (UGC, or user-generated content), which is what Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA pertains to. (Apologies for mentioning the DMCA in my previous response, I erred there.)

It's an interesting question as to whether Meta's act of selective republication of others' content constitutes its own content. This matter hasn't been adjudicated; I expect it will be in the fullness of time.

Parties and their attorneys disagree on legal and factual questions all the time. Meta has a position; others may differ. These disagreements are why we have a dispute resolution system (i.e., the courts) in the first place.