I get where they're coming from. Moderating a huge online presence where people can make posts about things is difficult and costly. But..... It's their platform and they're in charge of it. So........ It kinda sounds like they have to.
if an entire federation of volunteers can do it, a massive org like amazon can.
Yeah, but moderating a massive platform would make infinite growth very difficult, and the shareholders demand infinite growth. Won't someone think of the shareholders?
And if any company can pay for it, it’s Amazon.
They’re complaining because they don’t WANT to, not because they don’t have the money to.
They want to hoard more billions.
I get this to a certain extent. But if Amazon makes absolutely no effort to police its platforms, then it should be able to be sued for potential defamation, libel, etc. Amazon cannot have total immunity from responsibility. I am not a lawyer but I think there is a legal term for things like this called, "Best Effort." I am more familiar with criminal law than civil law though.
I feel like, even on non-anonymous platforms, the onus is on a prosecutor to figure it out. Moderators should do their best effort but it is an impossible task. Would you hold a mail carrier liable for what they deliver?
Mail carriers, logistics companies, and couriers often X-ray contents for hazard or illegal materials.
Yes, but not the contents of letters, which is a closer equivalent.
A postcard would be the equivalent.
Letters are more like encrypted messages as you’re unable to read them.
I suppose that’s more accurate, but we don’t expect mail carriers to monitor the contents of postcards, either.
The mail carrier is more like the internet, or an isp. They transport the message. And as common carriers they are not responsible for the content.
Amazon is more like a public bar, that posts the postcards on it's giant message board for all to see.
And it would be expected of the bar to be somewhat responsible for what they choose to hang up or not.
That’s an interesting analogy. I used graffiti in another post trying to put some context to the problem.
In a small community like a bar, it’s reasonable to expect the owner to take down offensive content (for their reputation if nothing else).
In a bar with millions of people, that’s definitely harder. Amazon can afford it, but on the other side: should volunteer fediverse instance admins be required to review every post?
Graffiti is not a great analogy because it's not what your property is made for. If you had a wall on your property that you made publicly accessible specifically for graffiti, then you may be responsible for what you allow to stay up on it. Otherwise, it's just someone vandalising your property.
Letters aren't being posted publicly either though
Maybe graffiti? I’m not really sure what my legal obligations are if someone were to put a public-facing obscenity on my property. I’d clean it up, but it would be a lot harder if it happened thousands of times a day.
i don't think anyone is asking Amazon (or anyone) to do a perfect job-- that's impossible. but platform owners should be responsible for making a reasonable effort to keep their spaces safe.
They don't wanna do it cuz most of the reviews and items would fall under disinformation. Fake reviews, fake products, ripoff products and the like...not?
Amazon argues other large retailers weren't given the same designation, but is that because Amazon is largest or because the other retailers are already doing a good enough job (in which case no harm in the EU agreeing to include more retailers in the list) or because EU arbitrarily wants Amazon in the list without proof it would make a difference (in which case maybe take another look at the criteria used to make the list).
Imo, it's fair to ask why Alex Jones' webstore shouldn't also have to police disinformation they put out
Then give police admin access and let them do their job.
Oh wait... ahh.... dammit, still better than the current situation though.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
