-
pottsmark pilhofer dkiesow iroughol Oh I'm sure they are... but still worth bringing up the question of if...say... Facebook pays a far-right company to create videos for FBTV or Google pays one for AMP Stories, does it have some moral/ethical responsibility over the content?Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +5 🙂
-
pottsmark pilhofer dkiesow iroughol I don't think the arguments over if FB is Publisher are ever about legal liability. It's about if it has editorial responsibility at an ethical/moral level to constrain content that it fundamentally is responsible for funding, directly or indirectly.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +6 🙂
-
pottsmark pilhofer dkiesow iroughol Like most publications (in bad faith IMO) assign liability to freelancers in contracts where those freelancers deliver writing that the sites than edit and publish. That is... legal... but is it correct, moral or appropriate? I don't think it is there. FB has a version of that q.On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +3 🙂
-
pottsmark pilhofer dkiesow iroughol At the end of the day, I think that the big question most are asking is: do surfaces that both suggest/present specific content and simultaneously fund that content acquire an editorial responsibility over that content? It's the intersection w/funding creators that is at issue.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +2 🙂
-
pottsmark pilhofer dkiesow iroughol & that's why Substack is coming up in this, it may not personalize suggestions for content and so does it "present specific content" in an editorial way? I'm not sure, but the intersection with funding that content does bring up that responsibility question.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂