Is Facebook a platform or publisher?
Am Sure you can learn successful Blogging secrets through me, am also sure you can learn how to make money online with the help of my updates why not leave your email behind let me show you how.
The social network has control similar to media and moderators and claims it is not a media company, sometimes argues that the platform is sometimes a publisher, and Facebook today announced that it will ban a bunch of users – because of “hate speech” “due to false claims about political appearances.
There are more people who can say they have deleted their post on Facebook, even though their account is locked for a number of days, but the reason is most commonly related to the content of the post. social network – or publisher – it seems to be a problem that can “eat the head” of a company.
These days, Facebook has announced that it will ban a bunch of consumers – because of “hate speech,” because of false claims, political issues, and so on. ” we banned individuals or organizations that encourage or participate in violence and hatred, regardless of ideology, “the company said.
The solution has caused turmoil because many people find that Facebook measures are” contr override “content rules and the unclear method of applying these rules. But the problem faced by the social network is what she has done alone.
Platform or publisher?
Let’s take a newspaper, for example. He has his own publisher. This publisher has the right to publish everything he wants in his newspaper. If we offer the article and the publisher likes it, it can publish it. If she does not like it, she will not post it. Simple and clear.
Amazon Kindle is a platform. There Amazon offers content processing tools but does not create content. If someone wants to read “My Fight” on their Kindle, Amazon can not forbid, stop it or tell him anything. An even better example of the platform are telecom operators.
They offer a network and software that can call, download data, send messages – but our operators can not tell us what to say and write – if we are to commit a conspiracy for the crime.
Here’s a problem with Facebook. The company refuses to clearly define what it is – a publisher or platform. If there is a Facebook platform, then we have no moral right to judge the content that is shared within it. The company, for its part, has the reason to insist that it can not be held responsible for the content generated by the users.
This is the same attitude we would have with the internet operator who showed himself as a criminal offender. If you are a Facebook publisher, you must control the content you post. And for the social network, there are millions of photos, videos, and publications. Facebook will then have the right and even the duty to monitor, read, edit and delete the content.
It should also destroy users because the publisher interrupts contracts with authors who create unacceptable content. Then the company will be responsible for the content. If that’s wrong, he can sue. And taco and Facebook are trying to do both. The social network has control similar to media and moderators and claims that it is not a media company.
Sometimes he claims to be a platform, sometimes publisher. On a non-public event, Facebook is identified as a platform or simply as a “technology company”, not as a publisher. This is a statement that appeared at a Senate meeting in April 2018, for example, when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed that although Facebook is responsible for the content of the platform user, the company is not a “media company” or a publisher that creates content.
This is not the first statement of this kind. By 2007, Wired magazine called the site “a full-fledged internet platform”. AdAge insisted in 2012 that “what critics from Facebook do not understand” is that it’s “a platform, not a publishing house.” But in court, their own Facebook lawyers claim the opposite.
In a lawsuit filed by a developer in 2018, Facebook lawyers claim that Facebook publisher can work as a newspaper – and thus have the opportunity to determine what to publish and what to not publish.
“The publisher’s verdict is a matter of freedom of speech, no matter what technology is used, and newspapers have a publisher’s function, either on a web site, on a paper or on a newsletter, lawyers say. appeared at a congressional hearing last spring, shows that he thinks about service as a publisher – while his company claims he was not, in an introductory statement to committee members, Zuckerberg said,
“We did not provide a broad overview of our responsibilities – and that was a big mistake. That’s my fault – and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, led it and was responsible for what’s happening here. “The boss then added,” I agree to be responsible for the content “on Facebook, repeating that Facebook does not produce its own content.
In short, Facebook is trying to reach both sides simultaneously: responding to user moderation and editing requirements, trying to avoid publisher liability. Between the two chairs After all, Facebook got up so it was a curse right now to moderate the content – and it’s a curse not to be moderated – a situation where it is not clear whether there is an exit – anyway, if current behavior does not change radically, all the chances of failure on both fronts.
This can be a matter of specific content that is expanding in social media while losing the trust of all its users who are believed to be a “virtual square” where everyone can express their views.
Is Facebook a platform or publisher?