Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
BS WP is the tool. not the user and therefore not to blame.
|
My bad, I mean services like wordpress.com or thumblr or other blogging networks. They couldn't operate if they had to moderate their users. Hence, limiting free speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
Libel is the crime of the libeler, not the medium the libel appears on. Disabling the ability to post any content and problem solved.
|
So you're saying facebook is a medium and not a website that is responsible for the communication on it? If that's what you're saying, then you're basically saying it's the one who publishes something who should held responsible, not those who created the medium where the libel took place. Hence, facebook shouldn't be responsible for their users actions, and shouldn't need to moderate it.
And you want the ability to post any content on the internet without moderation impossible? You do know text is also content right? How is the prevention of posting any content on any website not a limitation of freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
Can The New York Times post pictures they have no right to post? Will they or the advertiser be liable for submission? Will they be held responsible for posting pictures of naked children or allowing others to?
|
Of course they can't, because they are the ones publishing it, and they are responsible for it. The same way that I should be responsible for me posting a picture that you own on facebook without your permission. Facebook created the communication platform, and shouldn't be responsible for my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
We can live without Youtube.
|
Dumbest argument ever.. A small percentage of youtube's videos are copyright infringments, but there are other ways to deal with it than preventing anyone from uploading anything. They have automatic filters that detects copyrighted sound and video, and automatically removes it, or replaces it with content they make money on. This is the way to fight piracy, and such technology should be further developed and made accessible for others. Not laws that limits the actions of everyone, just to get rid of a few peoples unlawful conduct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
We can have a open social interactive internet. Just not one where people are allowed to post the property of others. If I break into your house and steal your computer then set up a place where anyone can use it. Is that an open social interactive operation?
|
That is the problem. You can't have an internet where you prevent people from posting other peoples property, without also limiting a lot of other forms of legit communication and free speech which isn't violating anyone's copyright. A discussion board (like gfy) couldn't work properly, if every post made by anyone would have to go through a moderation que before being published.