A vote about platform responsibility turned on a stubborn question of agency: when does hosting become complicity? Yes prevailed, but the argument that earned the room’s highest respect was a No voter’s warning against shifting blame from criminals to institutions.
Yes voters’ strongest case was not that companies should answer for every rogue user, but that they know what their systems host and amplify. The floor’s most-respected Yes argument likened platforms to “a landlord knowingly renting to a fraud ring”; another Yes voice said they become complicit if they “don’t take reasonable measures to prevent crimes.”
No voters returned to the distinction between a tool and its user. One of the side’s sharpest arguments asked, “When a tool is used to commit a crime, where is the fault?” Another argued that making platforms liable risks turning them into “an intelligence agency, police and government” at once. The sides talked past each other: Yes stressed companies’ knowledge and choices; No stressed the danger of making them responsible for acts they did not commit.
The debate also showed that “responsibility” meant different things to different voters: some Yes voices wanted stronger prevention, while a No voter accepted a duty of care but rejected “full liability.” That makes the result less a blank cheque for platform accountability than a verdict shaped by how far responsibility should extend.
The winning side carried the vote; the losing side supplied its most-respected argument.
42 Opinions
In an enivironment where the police are already vrey heavy hand in their policing of "hate speech," this seems dangerous to ne., It could lead to tech companies censoring free speech much more heavily to avoid any potential liability. I don't want tech bros or faceless algorithms being the arbiter of free speech, Individual users need to be held accountable for individual crimes.
There are some crimes that that tech companies can prevent, so every case has to be looked at before prosecution
Yes social media platforms is full of hate, bullying etc and frankly out of control. The sites know and aren't doing enough. They are responsible so need to be held responsible
Voted yes because, I don't consider that enough is being done to prevent bullying, suicides, privacy issues, misinformation, and so on. We have no way of knowing how old a person is. Misinformation must be tackled. Threats must be tackled. If there is a huge fine waiting in the wings for those who don't do enough, they might buck their ideas up.
just as banks are liable for financial crime on their platform...multi million dollar fines paid.
Would we hold government responsible for all crimes committed by illegals raping and murdering?? I wish
Should Judges be jailed if those arraigned in front of them go onto murder or rape? Should drinks companies be fined if consumers get drunk & injure themselves. Should Politicians be fined/sacked if they lie? We all have ‘agency’ & free choice as to our actions. The idea if you use a platform & commit a crime then the platform is somehow involved in a criminal joint venture would be hard to prove. It’s another pointless leakage from the incontinent US legal system.
The Internet should not be a free for all pile on. The written word falls nder libel laws: the medium used should not matter.
All crimes should be punished
No but they should be held accountable for stuff they allow