Twitter and Facebook Are Publishers, Not Platforms

The irresolute definition of the word platform has been galling me. In the classic sense, and insofar as engineering science is concerned, a platform is (from the Oxford English Lexicon) "A standard for the hardware of a calculator system, which determines what kinds of software information technology tin can run."

Opinions For diverse legal and marketing reasons, the give-and-take platform has taken on all sorts of other meanings which boil downward to "a neutral place we ready up but are not responsible for annihilation that goes on there, merely nosotros keep the coin." Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat all come to mind.

These are not platforms. They are modernistic publishing mechanisms. For one thing, platforms—your Mac or Windows PC—do not need, nor exist because of, advertising, among other differentiators.

There is some argument that Windows is a platform, but it's just an operating organization that runs on a platform called the PC. Is the browser a platform? No, it's software that runs on your operating organisation to access the internet. Simply isn't the net itself a platform, y'all may ask? No, the internet is a highly structured and refined network, not a platform.

Well, what about the iPhone? Information technology's a platform, isn't it? Yes, it is.

At the bottom of the barrel of this debate are Facebook, Twitter, and other social network software systems. Equally versatile as they may or may not be, they are not platforms. They desire to exist seen every bit platforms for the sole purpose of avoiding legal constraint, which costs money to work around and requires more responsibility than these companies want to be burdened with.

They are publishers. Information technology is time we stopped giving them a complimentary ride as bogus "platforms" as if they have no control and cannot be held responsible for what their users post. Every so often, Facebook or Twitter banishes someone or removes some pages or tweets, and nosotros see them doing their job of editing the work to be published so it meets customs and legal standards. But like a paper, mag, or any publisher is supposed to do.

Yep, the Wild West aspect of these social networking systems has been fun. Posters/users take been able to get away with doing whatever they want on someone else'due south dime. Great fun.

On my PC—an actual platform—I can exercise whatsoever I want with nada constraints. That'due south because a true platform is genuinely a neutral device or affair. I own information technology. I can practise whatever I want with it. I can accept Windows off and run Linux or write my ain code.

There is no such relationship with Facebook. It'south not endemic by me. I'chiliad a guest immune to run its software via a browser or other get-between. On a platform, I have the correct to do anything I desire. None of this is truthful for these online-software deject-based structures. It's folly to call back otherwise.

These social systems would be out of concern overnight if they were redefined every bit publishers. Seen as platforms, they are given a free pass on too many legal issues, including libel. When someone goes on Facebook and libels someone in whatsoever real way, the company should be sued, as it enabled, published, and allowed the libel to exist online.

If Facebook were really a neutral operation with zero responsibility for anything its users postal service, similar some sort of cork board in a public square, so it would accept to allow anything and would never take whatsoever sort of action.

Equally far as I tin can come across, the end user license understanding and terms of service are a smokescreen obfuscating reality. Can a newspaper somehow develop an EULA and post information technology in the paper holding it blameless from libel or other legal action? If not, then how can Facebook do it? Is information technology just because it is electronic? Are in that location special rights for that? You may want to think so, every bit nosotros've been brainwashed to believe that the internet must be free from constraint. But that is nonsense. At that place is nix special about it, except its technical nature. How and why is it exempt from normal laws and standards?

Permit's go over these bogus notions virtually the magical aspects of the internet and the idea that it is somehow exempt from any rules or laws that came before. That goes double for the publishers, aka the social networks.

About John C. Dvorak

John C. Dvorak

John C. Dvorak is a columnist for PCMag.com and the co-host of the twice weekly podcast, the No Agenda Testify. His piece of work is licensed around the world. Previously a columnist for Forbes, PC/Calculating, Computer Shopper, MacUser, Barrons, the DEC Professional person likewise equally other newspapers and magazines. Former editor and consulting editor for InfoWorld, he also appeared in the New York Times, LA Times, Philadelphia Enquirer, SF Examiner, and the Vancouver Sun. He was on the start-up team for C/Internet too as ZDTV. At ZDTV (and TechTV) he hosted Silicon Spin for iv years doing 1000 alive and live-to-record TV shows. His Net show Cranky Geeks was considered a …