4 ms·

The problem inevitably has flared up: Twitter's head of integrity leading this push has previously tweeted that Trump is a Nazi and accused the flyover states o

by askl56 6y ago

The problem inevitably has flared up: Twitter's head of integrity leading this push has previously tweeted that Trump is a Nazi and accused the flyover states of being racist. https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/1265463081997484032 https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/1265463081997484032 This isn't going to end well, and unless Twitter is going to exercise this impartially (which is impossible given a human is involved), they are going to lose their platform status, and justifiably so.

ChrisLTD 6y ago
What’s “platform status”?
- dvtrn 6y ago
  Blue Check mark.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  I’m assuming Section 230?
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    People have read a lot into section 230 that they want to see there to imply there's some distinction between unmoderated (AKA 'platform status') and moderated platforms. In fact the only thing it really does is provide that 1) providers or users can't be held liable things users say and 2) if you voluntarily moderate your service you aren't incurring a civil liability. Check the text yourself [0] there's nothing in there about having to either be a complete free zone or even to moderate neutrally to get protection from civil liabilities. Personally I wish they'd take a tougher stance but legally they don't have to and I /really/ don't think it's a good idea to legally require them to because the definition of what is and isn't moderation worthy will change on a dime. [1] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [1] Especially under the 'unitary executive' theory which is used a lot to try to undermine any congressional restrictions or accountability on the executive branch. That means the interpretation and enforcement can and will switch overnight every 4-8 years.
- jonfw 6y ago
  You can either be a 'platform' for other people to speak, where you aren't held responsible for the content you host, or you can be a 'curator' where you control the content and are responsible or what you host. The trouble with Twitter (in some people's view) is that they play both sides- they're just a public platform when there is something illegal that they're hosting, but they're a curator when they don't like what you've posted.
  - ChrisLTD 6y ago
    Doesn’t just about every platform, forum, blog comment section, etc. do this? It seems untenable not to allow moderation.
    - jonfw 6y ago
      I agree and I'm generally anti-regulation of the media. But the argument would be that your average forum, blog comment section, etc. isn't one of the most important mediums of communication in the world's leading superpower's democracy
  - fooblat 6y ago
    You can also be both. Like every newspaper website that has a comment section. They are responsible for the parts they publish but not the user generated comments. There is no legal requirement to be one or the other. For whatever reason, most people seem to get this backwards. Here is the relevant legal code Section 230 C1: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service, a platform, shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” There is nothing in the law that says a publisher is responsible for user generated contact (even if they moderate it). In fact the law says just the opposite. Edit: added note in parenthesis
    - jonfw 6y ago
      Who cares? This is about ethics, not laws. If you are a proponent of this argument you would just advocate for changing the law
whatever1 6y ago
What is the justification?
Stubb 6y ago
Archive link in case Twatter tries to edit history: http://archive.is/QlbCF http://archive.is/QlbCF
javagram 6y ago
> This isn't going to end well, and unless Twitter is going to exercise this impartially (which is impossible given a human is involved), they are going to lose their platform status, and justifiably so. This isn’t how the law works, and Trump’s enemies, the Democrats, control the House of Representatives. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects the ability of online services to moderate content, this has been repeatedly upheld by the courts. The only way it could change is if the Senate, House, and President agree on a new law and pass it. If you want to learn more, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
josefresco 6y ago
To clarify, he didn't call Trump a Nazi. He said there are "actual Nazis in the White House" which could be a reference to staff or appointees.
- askl56 6y ago
  Regardless, that would need to be fact checked?

by askl56 6y ago

ChrisLTD 6y ago

What’s “platform status”?

dvtrn 6y ago
Blue Check mark.
colejohnson66 6y ago
I’m assuming Section 230?
- rtkwe 6y ago
  People have read a lot into section 230 that they want to see there to imply there's some distinction between unmoderated (AKA 'platform status') and moderated platforms. In fact the only thing it really does is provide that 1) providers or users can't be held liable things users say and 2) if you voluntarily moderate your service you aren't incurring a civil liability. Check the text yourself [0] there's nothing in there about having to either be a complete free zone or even to moderate neutrally to get protection from civil liabilities. Personally I wish they'd take a tougher stance but legally they don't have to and I /really/ don't think it's a good idea to legally require them to because the definition of what is and isn't moderation worthy will change on a dime. [1] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [1] Especially under the 'unitary executive' theory which is used a lot to try to undermine any congressional restrictions or accountability on the executive branch. That means the interpretation and enforcement can and will switch overnight every 4-8 years.
jonfw 6y ago
You can either be a 'platform' for other people to speak, where you aren't held responsible for the content you host, or you can be a 'curator' where you control the content and are responsible or what you host. The trouble with Twitter (in some people's view) is that they play both sides- they're just a public platform when there is something illegal that they're hosting, but they're a curator when they don't like what you've posted.
- ChrisLTD 6y ago
  Doesn’t just about every platform, forum, blog comment section, etc. do this? It seems untenable not to allow moderation.
  - jonfw 6y ago
    I agree and I'm generally anti-regulation of the media. But the argument would be that your average forum, blog comment section, etc. isn't one of the most important mediums of communication in the world's leading superpower's democracy
- fooblat 6y ago
  You can also be both. Like every newspaper website that has a comment section. They are responsible for the parts they publish but not the user generated comments. There is no legal requirement to be one or the other. For whatever reason, most people seem to get this backwards. Here is the relevant legal code Section 230 C1: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service, a platform, shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” There is nothing in the law that says a publisher is responsible for user generated contact (even if they moderate it). In fact the law says just the opposite. Edit: added note in parenthesis
  - jonfw 6y ago
    Who cares? This is about ethics, not laws. If you are a proponent of this argument you would just advocate for changing the law

whatever1 6y ago

What is the justification?

Stubb 6y ago

Archive link in case Twatter tries to edit history: http://archive.is/QlbCF http://archive.is/QlbCF

javagram 6y ago

> This isn't going to end well, and unless Twitter is going to exercise this impartially (which is impossible given a human is involved), they are going to lose their platform status, and justifiably so. This isn’t how the law works, and Trump’s enemies, the Democrats, control the House of Representatives. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects the ability of online services to moderate content, this has been repeatedly upheld by the courts. The only way it could change is if the Senate, House, and President agree on a new law and pass it. If you want to learn more, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

josefresco 6y ago

To clarify, he didn't call Trump a Nazi. He said there are "actual Nazis in the White House" which could be a reference to staff or appointees.

askl56 6y ago
Regardless, that would need to be fact checked?