On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:27 PM Steve Timko <[email protected]> wrote:
> The last paragraph is scary. > “The law hasn’t been written yet — yet — that holds carriers of > user-generated internet content responsible for the user-generated content > they carry, just like movie studios, television networks and book, magazine > and newspaper publishers. Ask Peter Thiel, who funded a series of lawsuits > against Gawker, including an invasion of privacy suit that bankrupted the > site and forced it to close down. (You should have Mr. Thiel’s number in > your phone because he was an early investor in Facebook.)” > This will shut down discussions of stories on news sites. I’ve moderated > discussion at two news sites in the last 12 years and the fact we were > responsible or could be held liable for comments people post is the only > reason these sites could exist. No news site – and I’m including the New > York Times, CBS News and The Atlantic – have staff to research and vet > comments to make sure matters asserted as fact are accurate. > Do you think Google would allow Google groups to continue if they could be > held liable for the lies or home addresses of celebrities or whistleblowers > that get posted? > One thing not being discussed in the whole Facebook ad thing is the > dilemma Facebook faces. Advertising is profitable because the ads are > do-it-yourself. No Facebook employee sees the ad until it is flagged. What > Zuckerberg is fighting to keep is the lucrative ad revenue that gets > generated with minimal review by humans. > I think there is a line between content produced for online distribution vs public commentary. The media outlets you mentioned (the Times, CBS, et al) have different policies and guidelines for news content as opposed to op-eds. The only reason the line between the two has blurred is because of crappy decisions by both mainstream and new media that masks opinions as news. If we redraw the line, Sorkin’s paragraph isn’t scary. Facts have one set of rules, opinions have another. > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:55 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I assume most here have read Sorkin’s (devastating IMO, but then, again, >> I saw every episode of Studio 60) public letter in the NYT to Zuck. I post >> the link here for posterity, and highly recommend if you have not read. >> Best explanation I have seen of difference between free speech and >> responsible speech. >> >> >> >> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/opinion/aaron-sorkin-mark-zuckerberg-facebook.html >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2B9ZFSdM33ka0WjAjaE3wPYdifOxc3kvkOuexFby_uPkQ%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2B9ZFSdM33ka0WjAjaE3wPYdifOxc3kvkOuexFby_uPkQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8ywB%2BbC%3DwxsvpcO%2BBTMC3sRJRxfkFDXcjhmr_5p_%2BZqXOw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8ywB%2BbC%3DwxsvpcO%2BBTMC3sRJRxfkFDXcjhmr_5p_%2BZqXOw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4AnPKULEpKxdrSFB%2B%3DVqwadce%3DEsMy7eXm4_UGtMCzkGA%40mail.gmail.com.
