Slashdot Mirror
Is Facebook a Publisher? In Public it Says No, But in Court it Says Yes (theguardian.com)
From a report: Facebook has long had the same public response when questioned about its disruption of the news industry: it is a tech platform, not a publisher or a media company. But in a small courtroom in California's Redwood City on Monday, attorneys for the social media company presented a different message from the one executives have made to Congress, in interviews and in speeches: Facebook, they repeatedly argued, is a publisher, and a company that makes editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment. The contradictory claim is Facebook's latest tactic against a high-profile lawsuit, exposing a growing tension for the Silicon Valley corporation, which has long presented itself as neutral platform that does not have traditional journalistic responsibilities.
The suit, filed by an app startup, alleges that Mark Zuckerberg developed a "malicious and fraudulent scheme" to exploit users' personal data and force rival companies out of business. Facebook, meanwhile, is arguing that its decisions about "what not to publish" should be protected because it is a "publisher." In court, Sonal Mehta, a lawyer for Facebook, even drew comparison with traditional media: "The publisher discretion is a free speech right irrespective of what technological means is used. A newspaper has a publisher function whether they are doing it on their website, in a printed copy or through the news alerts." [...] Facebook spokespeople declined to answer questions about its insistence outside of court that it is not a publisher or media entity.
The suit, filed by an app startup, alleges that Mark Zuckerberg developed a "malicious and fraudulent scheme" to exploit users' personal data and force rival companies out of business. Facebook, meanwhile, is arguing that its decisions about "what not to publish" should be protected because it is a "publisher." In court, Sonal Mehta, a lawyer for Facebook, even drew comparison with traditional media: "The publisher discretion is a free speech right irrespective of what technological means is used. A newspaper has a publisher function whether they are doing it on their website, in a printed copy or through the news alerts." [...] Facebook spokespeople declined to answer questions about its insistence outside of court that it is not a publisher or media entity.
Legal young guns do sometimes hit feet in small courtrooms.
Every website is a publication. Anyone running a website that publishes things for others is therefore a publisher.
Facebook can say whatever they want to the public, doesn't change what they and every other website is. A publication. That's the whole flippin' point of making a website. To get others to look at it. Exactly the same reason to make a book, flier, leaflet, magazine, newspaper... to get people to look at it. Same thing.
Let's take an interesting Hollywood example. Pick any of your choice, the toy of interest is the same, the newspaper of the future (Minority Report, Harry Potter) that has moving pictures, and possibly even speaks to you. Publication. Website is the same flippin' thing.
The courts also say that Facebook is a person, so their track record isn't exactly ideology-free. Meanwhile, I'm shocked, simply shocked that a corporation would say one thing and do another.
You may have noticed it's quiet on the net today. That's because today is the day we celebrate kicking your red-coated tea taxing asses to the curb. The original Brexit before Brexit was cool.
So catch you later, chaps. It's time to shovel a cheeseburger and some American pilsner down our giant American pie holes.
Facebook. The gift that keeps on taking.
-- Cheers!
A publisher of complete fucking bullshit.
In court, they say [what ought to be] the truth. In public, they are completely permitted to lie. I do believe Jerry Springer said it best, a very long time ago.
for what they publish. There is no safe harbor.
News at 11.
Whatever keeps you out of trouble I suppose.
Eventually it comes crashing down. I hope so, anyways.
I tend to rant.
Corporations are people and deserving of all the right's people enjoy, unless they do something illegal, then they aren't people and no one goes to jail. Facebook is a tech platform, until it's a publisher, until it's a utility, or whatever else it needs to be to get what it wants.
America needs to wake up and realize they live in a socialist government, but it's socialism for the rich and too big to fail corporations and capitalism for the poor.
Eventually we will come to the conclusion that Facebook is just plain unhealthy for people.
Fuck Zuck the Cuck! I hope he dies from a terminal yeast infection.
It'll be interesting to see in future court action against them if they try to flip the other way, and then have the prosecution ask which version is true, and if they've lied under oath.
AC comments get piped to
It will set a useful legal precedent to reign them in. You can't expect to play both sets of cards. That kind of win will show beyond any argument which set they've chosen.
I guess they can be held responsible for everything that is posted on Facebook then?
They are a bad company. They are bad people. They do bad things.
Then people are going to start calling them on journalistic integrity issues. Then lawsuits on journalistic integrity. Facebook, by claiming it is a publisher may back itself into journalistic integrity and the other publisher rules.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
The content can change if
its a court or congress doing the legal interpretation.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It's at the "editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment" level that it gets more messy.
From that point of view, Facebook isn't a newspaper, it's a tabloid.
Whereas newspaper will at least try to throw some considerations about informing their readership, and about journalistic integrity (checking source, doing full analysis, etc.) in whatever mix of reasons (besides advertisement money) leads them to a certain editorial decision, tabloids will just print whatever crap (including fabricated crap) as long as it attracts buyers.
Facebook is the same. There are not even human reviewing the system and taking actual "editorial decisions" (in the classical meaning of this term). There are only machine learning algorithms and other neural nets which are simply learning whatever gets the most clicks and which ever content keeps people the longest on facebook (where Mark Zuckerberg can earn lots of money by selling their eyeballs to advertisers and their personal data to whoever pays the most).
Which eventually (due to how human psychology works *) leads to people being kept in small bubble, where they get constantly presented with whatever crackpot conspiracy theory** is the most popular in the corresponding echo-chamber.
So basically, mindless tabloids, except Facebook is driven entirely by statistics, guaranteed human-free.
---
* : fear is the best drive for attention. It had some evolutionary advantage (an animal that runs away more easily is less likely to get eaten by a predator), but has the modern disadvantage that exaggerated fear-mongering is the best media strategy. See numerous studies about fear and violence on TV.
** : Which in turn can easily be abused by any (e.g.: russian, etc.) troll wanting to sow discord and infighting by throwing oil into the flame-war, and then profit from the resulting mayhem. See controversies surrounding the impact of facebook ion US' elections.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Public policy and then a [private] court one, like hillary