5 ms·

You can read the text of Section 230 at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 There’s an idea out ther

by d35007 7y ago

You can read the text of Section 230 at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 There’s an idea out there that Section 230 only applies to platforms that provide equal access to everyone. That’s not true. In fact, it explicitly allows “interactive computer service” providers to filter any material they deem to be objectionable in section (c)(2): > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material > (1) [omitted for brevity] > (2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; Twitter is 100% allowed to filter Giuliani’s (and any other whack job’s) nonsense/misinformation if they consider it to be objectionable. Doing so does not make them ineligible for the protections described in Section 230. _It is_ one of the protections described in Section 230.

hncensorsnonpc 7y ago
If this is correct, I still think its wrong. It is a loophole to me. They should not have that power to editorialize. In the next cases we may see them just declaring their opinion as "right" and everything else will be deleted. Assuming this thine it really was wrong what he tweet, not looked into it yet.
- d35007 7y ago
  > If this is correct, It’s correct. Read the law for yourself. I linked you to it in my last comment. > I still think its wrong. It is a loophole to me. I don’t see how it can be a loophole. That word usually refers to a way to use a statute for something other than its intended purpose. Section 230 says that “interactive computer service” providers can remove content they consider to be objectionable. It explicitly protects actions like the one Twitter took. > They should not have that power to editorialize. Why not? It’s their platform. You don’t have to participate. There are alternative platforms. How far do you take this? Should sites like Reddit be allowed to have moderators? Those tend to be users who aren’t employed by Reddit, but they can remove content for just about any reason. > not looked into it yet. Please, please make an effort to inform yourself before you start talking in the future. The Internet would be a much better place if everyone did. You can see the tweet that Twitter removed here: https://www.mediaite.com/news/twitter-deletes-rudy-giuliani-tweet-featuring-coronavirus-misinformation-and-false-attack-on-gov-whitmer/ https://www.mediaite.com/news/twitter-deletes-rudy-giuliani-.... Hydroxychloroquine has not been shown to be 100% effective, even in the extremely limited studies that have been done. Telling people otherwise is a lie and a potentially dangerous one. Claiming that governor Whitmer has threatened doctors is a big stretch. You can read the letter that the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs sent out here: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/Reminder_of_Appropriate_Prescribing_and_Dispensing_3-24-2020_684869_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/Reminder_of_Appropri.... The letter tells medical professionals not to prescribe the drug to themselves, their friends, family, or coworkers if there’s no legitimate medical purpose. It further says that reports of such behavior will be investigated and subject to administrative action. Sounds right to me.
  - qtplatypus 7y ago
    So basically it says don’t give people random drugs where there is no evedence base for that drug’s effectiveness. So in other words telling them to practice medicine.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > It is a loophole to me. It's not a loophole, it was the publicly stated purpose of the law when it was proposes.

by d35007 7y ago

hncensorsnonpc 7y ago

If this is correct, I still think its wrong. It is a loophole to me. They should not have that power to editorialize. In the next cases we may see them just declaring their opinion as "right" and everything else will be deleted. Assuming this thine it really was wrong what he tweet, not looked into it yet.

d35007 7y ago
> If this is correct, It’s correct. Read the law for yourself. I linked you to it in my last comment. > I still think its wrong. It is a loophole to me. I don’t see how it can be a loophole. That word usually refers to a way to use a statute for something other than its intended purpose. Section 230 says that “interactive computer service” providers can remove content they consider to be objectionable. It explicitly protects actions like the one Twitter took. > They should not have that power to editorialize. Why not? It’s their platform. You don’t have to participate. There are alternative platforms. How far do you take this? Should sites like Reddit be allowed to have moderators? Those tend to be users who aren’t employed by Reddit, but they can remove content for just about any reason. > not looked into it yet. Please, please make an effort to inform yourself before you start talking in the future. The Internet would be a much better place if everyone did. You can see the tweet that Twitter removed here: https://www.mediaite.com/news/twitter-deletes-rudy-giuliani-tweet-featuring-coronavirus-misinformation-and-false-attack-on-gov-whitmer/ https://www.mediaite.com/news/twitter-deletes-rudy-giuliani-.... Hydroxychloroquine has not been shown to be 100% effective, even in the extremely limited studies that have been done. Telling people otherwise is a lie and a potentially dangerous one. Claiming that governor Whitmer has threatened doctors is a big stretch. You can read the letter that the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs sent out here: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/Reminder_of_Appropriate_Prescribing_and_Dispensing_3-24-2020_684869_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/Reminder_of_Appropri.... The letter tells medical professionals not to prescribe the drug to themselves, their friends, family, or coworkers if there’s no legitimate medical purpose. It further says that reports of such behavior will be investigated and subject to administrative action. Sounds right to me.
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  So basically it says don’t give people random drugs where there is no evedence base for that drug’s effectiveness. So in other words telling them to practice medicine.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> It is a loophole to me. It's not a loophole, it was the publicly stated purpose of the law when it was proposes.