15:33 - turpinot par to pašu
"A Platform For All Ideas" is just their way of getting out of saying "neutral platform" because that has legal implications and a significant challenge of it that could lose them their Section 230 status. It could also have meant Zuck would have been guilty of perjury.Yes, and that's despite the Left's denial that it would do this. For example, Facebook could be found a publisher of information as they have knowledge of all information on their site, enforce it selectively etc. This would make them liable for everything there. From child porn to death threats. If they are willing to censor the Right, why not ANTIFA? If they are willing to ban you for posting Alex Jones, why not that guy who posted X illegal thing? Why were they only looking for rightwing content in their algorithms? It means they'd be legally responsible for policing very bit of content on their site 24/7.
They can write as many clickbait articles denying it as they want, but Facebook, Twitter etc are being careful with their language and using this phrase for a reason.
It may also interfere with EU protections of ECD 2000 article 14, as it specifically calls for neutrality in their operations.
The reason why Twitter hasn't banned Jones yet is because they are feeling the heat on censorship already and realize that this all looks very, very bad. Jack, Twitter's owner, said as much in his press statement on the matter. It could land them all in an antitrust suit and massive legal trouble down the line.
Nebūtu slikti, ja viņiem tiktu piešķirts "publisher" vai "content creator" status. Viņi nogrimtu zem miljoniem tiesas prāvu, kas tādā veidā būtu iespējamas, jo viņi būtu juridiski atbildīgi par VISU, kas atrodas to uzraudzītajos serveros. You can't have it both ways. Vai nu neitrāla platforma, vai cieši kontrolēta izdevniecība.