Is Facebook a Publisher? In Public it Says No, But in Court it Says Yes (theguardian.com) 42
From a report: Facebook has long had the same public response when questioned about its disruption of the news industry: it is a tech platform, not a publisher or a media company. But in a small courtroom in California's Redwood City on Monday, attorneys for the social media company presented a different message from the one executives have made to Congress, in interviews and in speeches: Facebook, they repeatedly argued, is a publisher, and a company that makes editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment. The contradictory claim is Facebook's latest tactic against a high-profile lawsuit, exposing a growing tension for the Silicon Valley corporation, which has long presented itself as neutral platform that does not have traditional journalistic responsibilities.
The suit, filed by an app startup, alleges that Mark Zuckerberg developed a "malicious and fraudulent scheme" to exploit users' personal data and force rival companies out of business. Facebook, meanwhile, is arguing that its decisions about "what not to publish" should be protected because it is a "publisher." In court, Sonal Mehta, a lawyer for Facebook, even drew comparison with traditional media: "The publisher discretion is a free speech right irrespective of what technological means is used. A newspaper has a publisher function whether they are doing it on their website, in a printed copy or through the news alerts." [...] Facebook spokespeople declined to answer questions about its insistence outside of court that it is not a publisher or media entity.
The suit, filed by an app startup, alleges that Mark Zuckerberg developed a "malicious and fraudulent scheme" to exploit users' personal data and force rival companies out of business. Facebook, meanwhile, is arguing that its decisions about "what not to publish" should be protected because it is a "publisher." In court, Sonal Mehta, a lawyer for Facebook, even drew comparison with traditional media: "The publisher discretion is a free speech right irrespective of what technological means is used. A newspaper has a publisher function whether they are doing it on their website, in a printed copy or through the news alerts." [...] Facebook spokespeople declined to answer questions about its insistence outside of court that it is not a publisher or media entity.
Yes. (Score:4, Informative)
Every website is a publication. Anyone running a website that publishes things for others is therefore a publisher.
Facebook can say whatever they want to the public, doesn't change what they and every other website is. A publication. That's the whole flippin' point of making a website. To get others to look at it. Exactly the same reason to make a book, flier, leaflet, magazine, newspaper... to get people to look at it. Same thing.
Let's take an interesting Hollywood example. Pick any of your choice, the toy of interest is the same, the newspaper of the future (Minority Report, Harry Potter) that has moving pictures, and possibly even speaks to you. Publication. Website is the same flippin' thing.
Re: Yes. (Score:3)
If it is a publication it is also to be held responsible for anything published there.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is a publication it is also to be held responsible for anything published there.
Maybe. This is where websites have gamed the system. Websites can get away with not calling themselves media companies, or publishers, or publications, or anything like that by jumping under the umbrella that protects ISPs. Technology companies, information services. Your cable provider falls under this umbrella as well as distributor of a multitude of 'publishers' ie tv stations.
This umbrella should really only cover places like Amazon Web Services, Steam (maybe, they are actual dual role company), int
Editorial decisions (Score:3)
It's at the "editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment" level that it gets more messy.
From that point of view, Facebook isn't a newspaper, it's a tabloid.
Whereas newspaper will at least try to throw some considerations about informing their readership, and about journalistic integrity (checking source, doing full analysis, etc.) in whatever mix of reasons (besides advertisement money) leads them to a certain editorial decision, tabloids will just print whatever crap (including fabricat
Re: (Score:2)
From that point of view, Facebook isn't a newspaper, it's a tabloid.
These days I think that's overly generous. They're neither a newspaper nor a tabloid. They're a straight up publisher of fiction, like Penguin or HarperCollins. I don't think even the AIs are trying anymore.
Well... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No court has ever said Facebook is a person.
The courts have said that Facebook, like all corporations, is a legal entity that has the right to own property, enter into contracts, buy and sell, or other perform the economic functions of a human being.
The courts have also said that humans have rights, and do not lose those rights when they cooperate.
Which particular lie are you pushing?
Re: (Score:1)
The piss weak beer was a side effect from listening to turn of the 20th century progressives on beverage consumption and outlawing it. Luckily, that is finally reverting to the good stuff.
https://boston.cbslocal.com/20... [cbslocal.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's also the day you should be thanking France, because without French support, you'd probably be part of Canada, and the national holiday would have been four days ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, if the french want to bring back the aristos, we'll happily include them in the celebration, but France went completely off the fucking deep end when they had their revolution.
Gift (Score:3)
Facebook. The gift that keeps on taking.
I don't see the problem (Score:2)
In court, they say [what ought to be] the truth. In public, they are completely permitted to lie. I do believe Jerry Springer said it best, a very long time ago.
Re: (Score:3)
In court, they say [what ought to be] the truth. In public, they are completely permitted to lie. I do believe Jerry Springer said it best, a very long time ago.
The problem is the CEO said the opposite in his testimony to Congress. So they have committed perjury in one of these venues.
Publishers with editorial control are liable (Score:1)
for what they publish. There is no safe harbor.
Shitty Company Lies... (Score:2)
News at 11.
Yeah (Score:2)
Whatever keeps you out of trouble I suppose.
Eventually it comes crashing down. I hope so, anyways.
Corporations are people... (Score:1)
Corporations are people and deserving of all the right's people enjoy, unless they do something illegal, then they aren't people and no one goes to jail. Facebook is a tech platform, until it's a publisher, until it's a utility, or whatever else it needs to be to get what it wants.
America needs to wake up and realize they live in a socialist government, but it's socialism for the rich and too big to fail corporations and capitalism for the poor.
Re: (Score:3)
Calling it "Socialism" is just giving in to the endless propaganda you are swamped by in the US which tells you that Socialism is the worst thing you could possibly have, and the only good kind of government is the one you live under. (Land of the free and the home of the brave anyone?)
I know it's hard to look past the propaganda, but if you can you might see your world as it really is.
Re: (Score:2)
Land of the free corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Except its not. Oligarchy presupposed control by a small exclusive group. The rich in the United States are not a closed group. While it's not true anyone can become rich, it is true that all one has to do to become rich in the United States is earn lots of money.
Bill Gates parents were rich, and he comes from money. Mark Zuckerberg's parents were professionals, and while no doubt enjoying a good income were not rich. Sam Walton's parents were farmers and his father eventually became an insurance agent.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Your crack about "the mythical socialist paradise" would seem to be the sort of dualist thinking and setting up of st
Lyin' under oath? (Score:3)
Let's hope this Facebook lawyer wins... (Score:2)
It will set a useful legal precedent to reign them in. You can't expect to play both sets of cards. That kind of win will show beyond any argument which set they've chosen.
If they want to be a publisher (Score:2)
Schrödinger's media (Score:2)
its a court or congress doing the legal interpretation.