H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: Platform, or Publisher? > If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then > they need to get out of the censorship business. >
If they are trying to shield themselves claiming "platform" rights under Code 230, that's unfair. I don't know what the story is. In my opinion they are definitely publishers, not platforms. So am I, at LENR-CANR.org. I would not want to be considered a platform because someone could force me to publish something I disagree with, as long as the document was legal in the sense it was not porn or libel. I think Facebook should have the same rights I do. A platform would be an ISP, such as Jumpline, which hosts LENR-CANR.org. They are not responsible for anything I upload. Suppose their management was strongly in favor of plasma fusion and they agreed with Robert Part that cold fusion is criminal fraud and lunacy. They would still not have the right to throw me out. That's the point of U.S. Code 230. As I recall, Jumpline does have a policy that they will remove websites that host illegal activities. Looking at it the other way, an ISP has a "good Samaritan" right to refuse to host websites which they sincerely believe violate the laws: (2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service <https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=47-USC-1900800046-1237841278&term_occur=999&term_src=> shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers <https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=47-USC-10252844-1237841279&term_occur=999&term_src=title:47:chapter:5:subchapter:II:part:I:section:230> or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 By the way, I am not actually opposed to uploading attacks on cold fusion. On the contrary, I asked Robert Park and John Huizenga for permission to upload their work. They never responded. I would not want to be forced to upload anything, but I would be pleased to upload their stuff. I have never refused a paper. In a few cases, I suggested the paper be uploaded somewhere else, because it seemed off-topic. The authors were happy to put the papers elsewhere. If someone submits a paper on magnetic motors I would probably refuse it because it seems to have no relationship to cold fusion. That hasn't happened. There are papers by the late Ken Shoulders about something called EVOs. I have not read these papers. I glanced at one years ago. I could not make head or tail of it. I have no idea what an EVO is. As far as I can tell they have nothing to do with cold fusion. But some people recently suggested I upload the papers anyway. I guess that is okay. If that's what the audience wants to see. I don't have copies but someone may send me one. Generally speaking, I want to avoid off-topic papers because they annoy the readers. People tell me they come to LENR-CANR.org to find information on cold fusion, and they do not want to have to sort through other papers about magnetic motors or what-have-you. My "no off-topic" rule is not hard and fast. I have a few papers that are not about cold fusion, such as this one about plasma fusion and fission reactors: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf
