That's a meaningless question because it's tangential to the Communications Decency Act. Censoring content or changing a social media feed algorithm isn't classified that way. You might not like the law but that's how it works based on the plain language of the statute and confirmed through extensive case law.
Asking about the effect of a passage in the Communications Decency Act is a "meaningless question" and is tangential to the Communications Decency Act?
>Asking about the effect of a passage in the Communications Decency Act is a "meaningless question" and is tangential to the Communications Decency Act?
Given the extensive case law[0] generated since the passage of the CDA, yes it is pretty meaningless.
Because that case law clearly defines what those terms mean and they don't mean aggregators like Facebook.
It's reasonable to question, given the moderation choices made by entities like Facebook, how much impact they may have on public discourse.
However, the meaning of the text of the CDA, and especially Section C(1) has been clarified many, many times and doesn't mean what you think it means.
Whether that's right or wrong/good or bad is a different question. But the question you asked[1], given the law and its application over the past 25 years or so, is pretty meaningless in the sense that it has been repeatedly answered (and that answer is 'no') over that quarter century.
> This passage does something by preventing them from being so classified. Right?
Is no, the passage doesn't do anything (anymore)?
[EDIT] I think you think I think some stuff I don't. I don't even know what you're talking about when you claim it doesn't mean "what I think it means". You claimed the passage doesn't mean what another poster thinks it means, I asked what it does in fact mean, i.e. what would happen if the passage were absent, and then you told me that question was irrelevant (why?), and then this post, which also seems to be addressing some other person or something... but maybe is addressing what I actually asked? I can't tell.
[EDIT AGAIN] Hell, the wikipedia article you cited even seems to back up the (other poster's) interpretation you were claiming was wrong. I am so confused.
>This passage does something by preventing them from being so classified. Right?
The relevant section (c1) of the CDA states:
No provider or user of an interactive computer
service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker
of any information provided by another information
content provider.
Is answered 'yes.' I was, however, responding to your other question:
>So what would it mean if Facebook were treated as the "publisher or speaker" of information they... well, publish?
And (thank you for calling me out on this, I should have been more precise. My apologies) the answer to that is, as decades of case law clearly shows, they wouldn't be. Which is why the question is somewhat meaningless since, as the law exists currently, it's irrelevant.
A better question might have been (and upon reflection, is probably the question you were asking), "should the law be changed to address the impacts of moderation by large players like Facebook?"
The law as it currently is, doesn't address those issues. Should the law (in general, not necessarily the CDA) do so?
That's a much more interesting (and relevant) question. And if that was the question you intended to ask, my apologies for misunderstanding.
Personally, I'm of two minds about that. Limiting the ability of actors to sue platforms over their hosting of other people's speech (and that's the important bit, to me at least) is, in general, a good thing.
That said, the big players' engagement-focused strategies and the algorithms that support them are certainly (to understate the issue) problematic, in that they promote outrage, groupthink and the demonization of a variety of folks in an effort to boost ad revenues. That's a bad thing.
However, If we didn't have such limitations, it would have several outcomes for most platforms (be they mailing lists, message boards/sections of websites, product review sites, etc., etc., etc.):
1. No moderation at all. Quickly turning any place for third party commentary (HN included) into a cesspit of spam, porn and other stuff superfluous to the goals of both the sites and their visitors;
2. Widespread removal of comment sections altogether and the shutdown of huge numbers of sites (likely HN as well);
3. Those with deep pockets bankrupting anyone who hosts content they don't like with lawsuit after lawsuit (The Better Business Bureau[0] comes immediately to mind).
Ironically, sites like Facebook/Twitter, etc. have deep enough pockets to fight such lawsuits, likely leaving them relatively unscathed by such a change in the law.
>[EDIT] I think you think I think some stuff I don't. I don't even know what you're talking about when you claim it doesn't mean "what I think it means".
That may well be so. And if I misunderstood (and it seems I did, I hope I addressed that above), my apologies.
>You claimed the passage doesn't mean what another poster thinks it means, I asked what it does in fact mean, i.e. what would happen if the passage were absent, and then you told me that question was irrelevant (why?), and then this post, which also seems to be addressing some other person or something... but maybe is addressing what I actually asked? I can't tell.
Nope. I was responding specifically to your comment[1], which I clearly misunderstood. I've attempted in this comment to correct myself and to respond to (at least as I understand it -- which may be just as wrong but I hope not) the question you did ask.
>Awesome, thanks so much, this cleared it up. Sorry this ended up requiring you to write a novel.
No apologies necessary. I misunderstood you and was unclear in my response.
I'll try to do better in the future.
That said, I'm glad I was able to clarify. Although I am curious as to your (and everyone else too) take on how we might tweak the legal environment to address the issues under discussion.
