Hacker News

points by erentz 2 days ago | 0 comments

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.