Amazon tells court it shouldn't have to police its platforms for hate speech and disinformation - eviltoast

Amazon filed a petition with an EU court asking it to annul its designation as a “very large online platform” in the Digital Services Act.

  • Quokka@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Mail carriers, logistics companies, and couriers often X-ray contents for hazard or illegal materials.

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A postcard would be the equivalent.

        Letters are more like encrypted messages as you’re unable to read them.

          • sep@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • MentallyExhausted@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • scutiger@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

        • MentallyExhausted@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.