- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
Random internet lawyer weighs in with this Sullivan & Flynn ordeal. Could be of interest to @It's HK-47
Reminder: Part of the controversy with twitter et al is whether they are a PUBLISHER or a PROVIDER. (may not be actual terms, it's just what I've labeled them to make it easier to remember)
For example: A newspaper is a publisher - they have control over what they put out and so are liable civilly and criminally for things that are published in the newspaper.
A telephone company is a provider - everybody gets a telephone. So people can call each other and plan terrorists attacks or anything else, and the telephone company is not liable in any way for this. You can't sue them if someone used their service to harm you, nor can the government arrest them for it.
For awhile now, the social media platforms have had the rights of a provider. But everyone is pointing out they're acting more and more like publishers. If they're publishers - they are open to lawsuits and such. But if they are providers, then they could be sued for denying service (kind of why the telephone company can't deny you a landline - even if you're going to use it to plan all your KKK meetings). The social media companies want the best of both worlds where they can deny service to whomever they want, but never have to take responsibility for the people on the platform.
In this case, I would bet that if it comes out they were outright cooking things to help out one political party, the companies would absolutely lose their provider protections.
Reminder: Part of the controversy with twitter et al is whether they are a PUBLISHER or a PROVIDER. (may not be actual terms, it's just what I've labeled them to make it easier to remember)
For example: A newspaper is a publisher - they have control over what they put out and so are liable civilly and criminally for things that are published in the newspaper.
A telephone company is a provider - everybody gets a telephone. So people can call each other and plan terrorists attacks or anything else, and the telephone company is not liable in any way for this. You can't sue them if someone used their service to harm you, nor can the government arrest them for it.
For awhile now, the social media platforms have had the rights of a provider. But everyone is pointing out they're acting more and more like publishers. If they're publishers - they are open to lawsuits and such. But if they are providers, then they could be sued for denying service (kind of why the telephone company can't deny you a landline - even if you're going to use it to plan all your KKK meetings). The social media companies want the best of both worlds where they can deny service to whomever they want, but never have to take responsibility for the people on the platform.
In this case, I would bet that if it comes out they were outright cooking things to help out one political party, the companies would absolutely lose their provider protections.
