4 ms·

The private company argument holds no water when they selectively apply their standards to promote their ideologies. At that point they're not an unbiased conte

The private company argument holds no water when they selectively apply their standards to promote their ideologies. At that point they're not an unbiased content platform but a biased publisher and need to be regulated as such. So the government needs to force these companies to decide are they 8kun or CNN?

bilbo0s 7y ago
That only motivates companies insofar as you are not going to hold them accountable for illegal content on their servers in any case. But we've made clear to Twitter that they will be held accountable for such content. (That's why the guys and gals in the navy blue windbreakers are, effectively, a constant fixture at Twitter. There's literally nothing Twitter can do about it.) So if you're going to make them operate under those conditions whether they are a platform or not, what benefit is there to cooperate with you? I can understand Twitter's view. Just let the government guys in full time, and do your best to take out content you know is going to cause problems. If you miss anything, the government guys can kill it themselves. That way, you're never in a position where it can be said that you were not cooperating with the government. It's unsurprising that your argument isn't swaying any of the various corporate counsels. I mean, it's an argument that's purely theoretical in a world where the government has said they will hold you accountable for fake news and government agents siphon the communication feeds from your servers full time anyway. Think of it this way, a threat to chop off someone's arms, is only effective if you have not already chopped off their arms.
- 0x445442 7y ago
  I’m not tracking with you. Who’s compelling Twitter to impose restrictions on what they, Twitter, reckon is hate speech? And why isn’t this entity compelling 4chan to do the same?
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    At the hearings in DC the Senators made it clear that any election interference detected on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, (no one else was dragged into the hearings), would result in significant penalties. This is why there was all of a sudden an enormous push by these companies to start things like "labeling fake news", or "not promoting political content". They are going to be held accountable for it. Point being, they're going to be held accountable in any case. That's resulted in just an almost shotgun approach to political stuff to the point where they sometimes even shut down legit political candidate accounts. In addition, they're being radically transparent with the government agencies in the form of data feeds so they can never be said to have let election interference content through. (Because they gave that content to the government agents and the agents didn't evaluate it as election interference either.) So they are no longer masters in their own homes in any case. No idea why they don't compel 4chan to do the same? Politics maybe? That's just a guess. I'm thinking maybe the politicians have already run all the numbers and they know that the people who frequent 4chan are typically not the 65 year olds who swing elections. So who cares what the nugget heads do? Again though, that's just a guess. But who knows really?
    - 0x445442 7y ago
      I see. Yeah, to be clear, I'm NOT for the government getting involved at all. My take on the DC hearings is it was just a smoke screen because they're scared to death of a trend materializing that non-career politicians can get elected and actually do the bidding of those that elected them. That and their afraid of losing control of the narrative. As for Twitter, I'm not sold on the damned if we do damned if we don't picture you're painting. I think Twitter has a definite agenda and they'd be policing speech and de-platforming those they don't agree with regardless of the politicians.
zerocrates 7y ago
Say Twitter comes out and says tomorrow, "You got us, we're biased, totally in the tank for the left." What legal or regulatory effect do you think this has? Or that it should have?
- 0x445442 7y ago
  In your scenario Twitter should not be allowed to hide behind section 230 of the CDA. Thus, they could be sued for liable just as CNN was in the Covington case. Twitter wants it both ways, they want to editorialize but they don’t want to be bound by the regulations in place for news publishers.
iron0013 7y ago
You are once again spreading the lie that there is some magical legal difference between a “platform” and a “publisher” that somehow limits a company’s ability to control what its users do on that company’s own servers. There is no such distinction, legally.
- 0x445442 7y ago
  There is though; it’s why the Covington kids went after publishers and not platforms in their law suits.

bilbo0s 7y ago

That only motivates companies insofar as you are not going to hold them accountable for illegal content on their servers in any case. But we've made clear to Twitter that they will be held accountable for such content. (That's why the guys and gals in the navy blue windbreakers are, effectively, a constant fixture at Twitter. There's literally nothing Twitter can do about it.) So if you're going to make them operate under those conditions whether they are a platform or not, what benefit is there to cooperate with you? I can understand Twitter's view. Just let the government guys in full time, and do your best to take out content you know is going to cause problems. If you miss anything, the government guys can kill it themselves. That way, you're never in a position where it can be said that you were not cooperating with the government. It's unsurprising that your argument isn't swaying any of the various corporate counsels. I mean, it's an argument that's purely theoretical in a world where the government has said they will hold you accountable for fake news and government agents siphon the communication feeds from your servers full time anyway. Think of it this way, a threat to chop off someone's arms, is only effective if you have not already chopped off their arms.

0x445442 7y ago
I’m not tracking with you. Who’s compelling Twitter to impose restrictions on what they, Twitter, reckon is hate speech? And why isn’t this entity compelling 4chan to do the same?
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  At the hearings in DC the Senators made it clear that any election interference detected on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, (no one else was dragged into the hearings), would result in significant penalties. This is why there was all of a sudden an enormous push by these companies to start things like "labeling fake news", or "not promoting political content". They are going to be held accountable for it. Point being, they're going to be held accountable in any case. That's resulted in just an almost shotgun approach to political stuff to the point where they sometimes even shut down legit political candidate accounts. In addition, they're being radically transparent with the government agencies in the form of data feeds so they can never be said to have let election interference content through. (Because they gave that content to the government agents and the agents didn't evaluate it as election interference either.) So they are no longer masters in their own homes in any case. No idea why they don't compel 4chan to do the same? Politics maybe? That's just a guess. I'm thinking maybe the politicians have already run all the numbers and they know that the people who frequent 4chan are typically not the 65 year olds who swing elections. So who cares what the nugget heads do? Again though, that's just a guess. But who knows really?
  - 0x445442 7y ago
    I see. Yeah, to be clear, I'm NOT for the government getting involved at all. My take on the DC hearings is it was just a smoke screen because they're scared to death of a trend materializing that non-career politicians can get elected and actually do the bidding of those that elected them. That and their afraid of losing control of the narrative. As for Twitter, I'm not sold on the damned if we do damned if we don't picture you're painting. I think Twitter has a definite agenda and they'd be policing speech and de-platforming those they don't agree with regardless of the politicians.

zerocrates 7y ago

Say Twitter comes out and says tomorrow, "You got us, we're biased, totally in the tank for the left." What legal or regulatory effect do you think this has? Or that it should have?

0x445442 7y ago
In your scenario Twitter should not be allowed to hide behind section 230 of the CDA. Thus, they could be sued for liable just as CNN was in the Covington case. Twitter wants it both ways, they want to editorialize but they don’t want to be bound by the regulations in place for news publishers.

iron0013 7y ago

You are once again spreading the lie that there is some magical legal difference between a “platform” and a “publisher” that somehow limits a company’s ability to control what its users do on that company’s own servers. There is no such distinction, legally.

0x445442 7y ago
There is though; it’s why the Covington kids went after publishers and not platforms in their law suits.