3 ms·

When you read contract language, you don't get to ignore words that you don't like. In this case, the key word is 'sufficient'. Google's position doesn't need t

by ABCLAW 9y ago

When you read contract language, you don't get to ignore words that you don't like. In this case, the key word is 'sufficient'. Google's position doesn't need to be that twitter is free from hate, but rather that it does enough to curtail it. If Gab.ai is built upon the premise that it does exactly ZERO curtailing, then it isn't going to get very far by trying to throw twitter under the bus in order to claim it is being treated inequitably.

LyndsySimon 9y ago
> If Gab.ai is built upon the premise that it does exactly ZERO curtailing It's not. They censor child porn and a few other things that are broadly illegal.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  https://twitter.com/getongab/status/908786987049533440 https://twitter.com/getongab/status/908786987049533440 Okay. Lets be more precise. Does 'Zero curtailing of hate speech' work for you?
  - johnnyanmac 9y ago
    tbf, the social media puts "hate speech" in quotes, implying that it disagrees with Google's definition (or rather, their perception of Google's definition). I guess the important part is whether they, in their terms of service, police hatespeech in the legal sense. Which I'm unsure of.
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    "Hate speech" is not prohibited - nor is it even legally defined - in the United States, where Gab is based. > If Gab.ai is built upon the premise that it does exactly ZERO curtailing, then it isn't going to get very far by trying to throw twitter under the bus in order to claim it is being treated inequitably. This is the assertion I was challenging - Gab does not promise "zero curtailing" as they censor content that is illegal in the jurisdiction in which they reside. For what it's worth, I think Google has every right to put in place whatever policies they want, so long as they are equally enforced. The complaint here seems to be that the rule that Google is accusing Gab of breaking is not enforced against other customers. I have no idea if that's legal or not.
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
      A private contract does not attract protection from the first amendment, which is a bar upon the creation of laws, not a bar upon the contractual behavior of private parties. I think you've skipped the key point here. >Google's position doesn't need to be that twitter is free from hate, but rather that it does enough to curtail it. The implicit premise of Gab and it's explicit stated position is that it will not curtail hate speech. Absent other indications, words in contracts are interpreted to have meaning. Accordingly, significant has a 'non-zero in some context' meaning. Zero =/= Non-zero. Accordingly Gab is in breach. Trying to compare them to twitter and other platforms that do moderation isn't a like-for-like comparison in the contractual framework this is being analyzed under.

by ABCLAW 9y ago

LyndsySimon 9y ago

> If Gab.ai is built upon the premise that it does exactly ZERO curtailing It's not. They censor child porn and a few other things that are broadly illegal.

ABCLAW 9y ago
https://twitter.com/getongab/status/908786987049533440 https://twitter.com/getongab/status/908786987049533440 Okay. Lets be more precise. Does 'Zero curtailing of hate speech' work for you?
- johnnyanmac 9y ago
  tbf, the social media puts "hate speech" in quotes, implying that it disagrees with Google's definition (or rather, their perception of Google's definition). I guess the important part is whether they, in their terms of service, police hatespeech in the legal sense. Which I'm unsure of.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  "Hate speech" is not prohibited - nor is it even legally defined - in the United States, where Gab is based. > If Gab.ai is built upon the premise that it does exactly ZERO curtailing, then it isn't going to get very far by trying to throw twitter under the bus in order to claim it is being treated inequitably. This is the assertion I was challenging - Gab does not promise "zero curtailing" as they censor content that is illegal in the jurisdiction in which they reside. For what it's worth, I think Google has every right to put in place whatever policies they want, so long as they are equally enforced. The complaint here seems to be that the rule that Google is accusing Gab of breaking is not enforced against other customers. I have no idea if that's legal or not.
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    A private contract does not attract protection from the first amendment, which is a bar upon the creation of laws, not a bar upon the contractual behavior of private parties. I think you've skipped the key point here. >Google's position doesn't need to be that twitter is free from hate, but rather that it does enough to curtail it. The implicit premise of Gab and it's explicit stated position is that it will not curtail hate speech. Absent other indications, words in contracts are interpreted to have meaning. Accordingly, significant has a 'non-zero in some context' meaning. Zero =/= Non-zero. Accordingly Gab is in breach. Trying to compare them to twitter and other platforms that do moderation isn't a like-for-like comparison in the contractual framework this is being analyzed under.