This will be an interesting test of brand vs. lawyers (and lobbyists).

Zuckerberg obviously wants an unfettered stream of ad revenue, irrespective of content.

He (and, to be fair, many others) rely on established precedent that a ‘conduit’ of information cannot be responsible for the content.

>>
“I believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online...I think, in general, private companies shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies...in the position of doing that.”
>>

But Facebook - as an engagement / advertising platform - is very different to a ‘dumb pipe’.

Their revenue model is tied to allowing the highest bidder (well, all bidders, really) to distribute, promote and target any content they are prepared to fund.

Twitter has less to lose.

It has ripped the bandaid off the fallacy that these global platforms are mere conduits, and acknowledged they bear a responsibility for content hosted and published.

Expect Facebook and others to come out all guns blazing.

Brand custodians need to ask what space they want to occupy when all is said and done.

#facebook #twitter #publisher #liability Scott Galloway #zuckerberg #lawtech #regulators #government #societyandculture #brand #brandreputation #brandprotection