DamianTV
08-10-2018, 06:02 PM
There are a few key major differences between a Platform and Publishers. Those differences include different sets of both Rights and Responsibilities.
Publisher:
- Right: Full Editorial Control
- Responsibility: Must be Responsible for what is said, including but not limited to Copyright, Libel, and Slander
Platform:
- Right: Protected from what is said by Platform Members
- Responsibility: Non Discrimination of Members based on Content or the Individual
Feel free to either add or make corrections. This is just my current and evolving understanding.
What seems to be desired by Big Tech is the Right to be protected from Responsibility, like a Platform, but they want full Editorial Control as a Publisher. They want their cake and to eat it too. Lets try a few examples. Stephen King has a Publisher. That Publisher can choose to publish Kings movies or books based on whatever criteria they want to apply. They can choose to publish something by King, and just as easily choose to not publish something by obscure authors. Another example would be Ron Paul Forums itself. RPF is the opposite of a Publisher, we are more of a Platform. The site owners are exempt from all responsibility of the content of what we say and do, which extends into the real world. If we say something in public that is not on RPF that does break the laws (Copyright, Libel, etc), RPF owners and admins are not held liable. RPF does have a responsibility to equally recognize each member as being equal to other members. Reasonable exceptions to the rule are Mods and Admins. We do have some rules. No bots or spam. Pretty obvious. No illegal content. No copyright infringement is permitted. Rules can also be extended as the Forum can be considered "Private Property". Interpretation of those rules is within the Rights of RPF to subjectively apply our own rules. "Fighting" is prohibited, but does not always result in a Ban of those fighting due to the subjective interpretation. Sometimes that "fighting" can be very constructive, thus allowed. Other times it can be highly disruptive, thus suspensions of those members can occur. What RPF does its best to do is not ban anyone based on opinions or discriminatory practices. Banning all members who are white would be considered discrimination as much as a ban on anyone for being liberal or liberal leaning.
The big point here is what is Google? Is it a Platform or a Publisher? What is Facebook, a Platform or Publisher? What is CNN? What Rights extend to which label? Is there even a difference between what is a Platform or Publisher? Would CNN have a Right to not interview Ron Paul? Would Facebook have a Right to ban Ron Paul from using it as a Platform?
People want Rights, and all too often forget the Responsibility side. People want to drive without insurance, that would be absolutely just fine and a-okay if people took responsibility for damages their driving caused, such as car accidents. The result is we end up with Laws in an effort to more clearly describe both the Rights and Responsibilities. The more irresponsible people in general behave, the more their Rights are restricted in an effort to be held Responsible for their actions.
Are there real Abuses of Free Speech? What are our Rights and Responsibilities? Would it be a good idea to define these all as clearly as we possibly can? If they came after Alex Jones, who is just a canary in a coal mine, they will inevitably come after us. What can we do to defend ourselves against this outright Censorship of any form of outlet, either Platform or Publisher, when they do come after us? We have a Terms of Service as well as Forum Rules, yet, those may not protect RPF should the Domain Registrar decide to turn us off, even if the RPF Servers are flat out owned and completely private. How do we defend ourselves when we are branded Hate Speech, or what ever rule they throw at us? Do we choose to Self Censor and comply only with extremist anti Free Speech demands, or do we maintain our stance that everyone has an equal set of Rights and Responsibilities? Are we "interfering" with Elections and "meddling" or are we exercising our Constitutional Right to peacefully assemble?
Its a lot to be asked, so take it as you will. The floor, for the time being, is wide open to you.
Publisher:
- Right: Full Editorial Control
- Responsibility: Must be Responsible for what is said, including but not limited to Copyright, Libel, and Slander
Platform:
- Right: Protected from what is said by Platform Members
- Responsibility: Non Discrimination of Members based on Content or the Individual
Feel free to either add or make corrections. This is just my current and evolving understanding.
What seems to be desired by Big Tech is the Right to be protected from Responsibility, like a Platform, but they want full Editorial Control as a Publisher. They want their cake and to eat it too. Lets try a few examples. Stephen King has a Publisher. That Publisher can choose to publish Kings movies or books based on whatever criteria they want to apply. They can choose to publish something by King, and just as easily choose to not publish something by obscure authors. Another example would be Ron Paul Forums itself. RPF is the opposite of a Publisher, we are more of a Platform. The site owners are exempt from all responsibility of the content of what we say and do, which extends into the real world. If we say something in public that is not on RPF that does break the laws (Copyright, Libel, etc), RPF owners and admins are not held liable. RPF does have a responsibility to equally recognize each member as being equal to other members. Reasonable exceptions to the rule are Mods and Admins. We do have some rules. No bots or spam. Pretty obvious. No illegal content. No copyright infringement is permitted. Rules can also be extended as the Forum can be considered "Private Property". Interpretation of those rules is within the Rights of RPF to subjectively apply our own rules. "Fighting" is prohibited, but does not always result in a Ban of those fighting due to the subjective interpretation. Sometimes that "fighting" can be very constructive, thus allowed. Other times it can be highly disruptive, thus suspensions of those members can occur. What RPF does its best to do is not ban anyone based on opinions or discriminatory practices. Banning all members who are white would be considered discrimination as much as a ban on anyone for being liberal or liberal leaning.
The big point here is what is Google? Is it a Platform or a Publisher? What is Facebook, a Platform or Publisher? What is CNN? What Rights extend to which label? Is there even a difference between what is a Platform or Publisher? Would CNN have a Right to not interview Ron Paul? Would Facebook have a Right to ban Ron Paul from using it as a Platform?
People want Rights, and all too often forget the Responsibility side. People want to drive without insurance, that would be absolutely just fine and a-okay if people took responsibility for damages their driving caused, such as car accidents. The result is we end up with Laws in an effort to more clearly describe both the Rights and Responsibilities. The more irresponsible people in general behave, the more their Rights are restricted in an effort to be held Responsible for their actions.
Are there real Abuses of Free Speech? What are our Rights and Responsibilities? Would it be a good idea to define these all as clearly as we possibly can? If they came after Alex Jones, who is just a canary in a coal mine, they will inevitably come after us. What can we do to defend ourselves against this outright Censorship of any form of outlet, either Platform or Publisher, when they do come after us? We have a Terms of Service as well as Forum Rules, yet, those may not protect RPF should the Domain Registrar decide to turn us off, even if the RPF Servers are flat out owned and completely private. How do we defend ourselves when we are branded Hate Speech, or what ever rule they throw at us? Do we choose to Self Censor and comply only with extremist anti Free Speech demands, or do we maintain our stance that everyone has an equal set of Rights and Responsibilities? Are we "interfering" with Elections and "meddling" or are we exercising our Constitutional Right to peacefully assemble?
Its a lot to be asked, so take it as you will. The floor, for the time being, is wide open to you.