4 ms·

twitter is a private organization. Regulating the speech of private organizations is a dangerous slope to be on.

by nojito 6y ago

akhilcacharya 6y ago
As a hill to die on though, it's certainly revealing!
alharith 6y ago
Private organization that enjoys the legal protections of a platform. Reclassify them as a publisher. Can't have it both ways.
- bardworx 6y ago
  Maybe an ignorant question but how would classifying Twitter as a publisher solve the issue? I’m guessing you mean that they should be held accountable for what people post there? Or is there a different angle I’m not seeing?
  - alharith 6y ago
    This article does a good job of explaining the issue (if you can stomach viewing an article on a conservative site, I know many here can't, but the information is good) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-media-platforms-or-publishers-rethinking-section-230/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-medi... Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history Also preempting the brigade downvoting anything that has the word 'conservative' in it by pointing out that Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...
    - bardworx 6y ago
      Thanks for the links and diversity of sources.
    - orwin 6y ago
      I can rewrite your post: ``` This article does a good job of explaining the issue https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-media-platforms-or-publishers-rethinking-section-230/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-medi... Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history This is not a conservative-only point of view: Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b... ``` You are allowed to be informative without being obnoxious. I was not aware of this issue and the article on theamericanconservative have an interesting point of view. The tone you used however will make most people here ignore or dismiss you. Yes, there is an anti-conservative bias on HN, but most people will still read an argument even on breibart if it is good. I understand the concern of the article but imho cancelling 230 might cripple them, and the propostion of state regulation will make them lost their power overseas. Will it allow other, european, asian or SA platforms to emerge? If the answer is yes it might have interesting side effects.
      - alharith 6y ago
        Cancelling 230 IMO is the wrong thing to do as well, but it, at minimum, needs to be modified to lay out some sort of "minimum neutrality / anti-bias criteria" and provisions for holding these Tech companies accountable -- something like 3 strikes and you're out -- you lose your platform status -- hey! kind of how like they treat the rest of us! Bonus points if we can algorithmically determine it so they lose it without human input or consideration of context and then have to beg not to be "deplatformed" by yelling for help from an actual human on other social media sites.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Private organization that enjoys the legal protections of a platform. Reclassify them as a publisher. Can't have it both ways. You absolutely can, and that's even been a norm in the US since CDA Section 230 was implemented specifically to make that possible, within certain bounds, which Twitter sits well within. Admittedly, that's been progressively chipped away recently.
  - alharith 6y ago
    Yes I am aware of CDA section 230. Another way of saying what I said is I think CDA section 230 needs to be repealed, or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking against free speech to qualify for protection under the act. Joe Biden is for the idea: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking The government being selective about which expressive choices by a platform operator are get favorable treatment under law rapidly gets into violations of actual Constitutional free speech protections, unlike the private actions that people are making fake “free speech” claims about.
      - alharith 6y ago
        By the same token, the government enacting legislation that gives these same tech companies blanket protection over the clear bias they institute is by extension limiting free speech by government law. In other words, the government passed a law that enabled others to limit free speech. Wonder if this angle has been tried in court yet?
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > By the same token, the government enacting legislation that gives these same tech companies blanket protection over the clear bias they institute is by extension limiting free speech by government law. No, it's not. Permitting private bias without government consequence is the definition of free speech. Restricting it is contrary to free speech, and is permitted only to the extent that it fits within recognized Constitutional limitations on the right of free speech.
- nojito 6y ago
  Yup I agree. Internet companies have enjoyed the cost benefits from being classified as both a platform and a publisher. It was clever of them to convince the internet community that it's about "free speech" when it's actually always about the costs.
fantastisch 6y ago
When private organizations are regulating the speech of the population? It's a necessary slope. Because doing it without centralized government control is bad. But regulation of speech can be good. Take a look at https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189120.shtml https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189120.shtml for an interesting discussion.
spinach 6y ago
Twitter already regulates speech though, to their own agenda. I got into the gender debate recently (a big mistake), and so many gender critical people get suspended or banned just for believing in reality (that males can't be women) and standing up for women's rights. A man (Zuby) got suspended for simply saying 'dude' to someone. People get their accounts deleted for 'misgendering' people. Twitter is already, hardly a bastion of free speech.
- driverdan 6y ago
  > and so many gender critical people get suspended or banned just for believing in reality (that males can't be women) and standing up for women's rights Good. They should be banning bigots. Don't like it? Start your own service where bigots can roam free.
- _fizz_buzz_ 6y ago
  > Twitter already regulates speech though, to their own agenda. Are you saying that if someone has a website, they shouldn't be allowed to set the rules for that site. Are you going to allow me to post whatever I want on your website?
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Not parent commenter, but ... Actually, I think certain sites are so prolific as to basically amount to public spaces and that we should have agreed principles by which they can[|not] moderate an individual's speech, because they effectively can have a real effect on a person's ability to "speak" in "public".
    - badRNG 6y ago
      Perhaps certain sites became prolific due in part to the moderation decisions they make for their platforms. For instance, there are other sites that take a very different moderation strategy (4chan comes to mind.) If Twitter developed a moderation strategy like Voat or 4chan, likely people would leave for a company that utilized a different moderation style. Then you'd be wondering why there isn't "free speech" on that platform. This gets to the root of the issue, the crux of the argument isn't whether one is entitled to have a public space to spread ideas, but whether one is entitled to a platform by which their ideas can be spread. A platform whose ubiquity is paradoxically dependent on that platform's ability to moderate what type of discourse is permitted.

twitter is a private organization. Regulating the speech of private organizations is a dangerous slope to be on.

by nojito 6y ago

twitter is a private organization. Regulating the speech of private organizations is a dangerous slope to be on.

akhilcacharya 6y ago

As a hill to die on though, it's certainly revealing!

alharith 6y ago

Private organization that enjoys the legal protections of a platform. Reclassify them as a publisher. Can't have it both ways.

bardworx 6y ago
Maybe an ignorant question but how would classifying Twitter as a publisher solve the issue? I’m guessing you mean that they should be held accountable for what people post there? Or is there a different angle I’m not seeing?
- alharith 6y ago
  This article does a good job of explaining the issue (if you can stomach viewing an article on a conservative site, I know many here can't, but the information is good) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-media-platforms-or-publishers-rethinking-section-230/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-medi... Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history Also preempting the brigade downvoting anything that has the word 'conservative' in it by pointing out that Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...
  - bardworx 6y ago
    Thanks for the links and diversity of sources.
  - orwin 6y ago
    I can rewrite your post: ``` This article does a good job of explaining the issue https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-media-platforms-or-publishers-rethinking-section-230/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/social-medi... Here's also some history on the law https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history This is not a conservative-only point of view: Joe Biden is actually for this idea as well (middle of article when he starts talking about the Facebook hearings and CDA 230): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b... ``` You are allowed to be informative without being obnoxious. I was not aware of this issue and the article on theamericanconservative have an interesting point of view. The tone you used however will make most people here ignore or dismiss you. Yes, there is an anti-conservative bias on HN, but most people will still read an argument even on breibart if it is good. I understand the concern of the article but imho cancelling 230 might cripple them, and the propostion of state regulation will make them lost their power overseas. Will it allow other, european, asian or SA platforms to emerge? If the answer is yes it might have interesting side effects.
    - alharith 6y ago
      Cancelling 230 IMO is the wrong thing to do as well, but it, at minimum, needs to be modified to lay out some sort of "minimum neutrality / anti-bias criteria" and provisions for holding these Tech companies accountable -- something like 3 strikes and you're out -- you lose your platform status -- hey! kind of how like they treat the rest of us! Bonus points if we can algorithmically determine it so they lose it without human input or consideration of context and then have to beg not to be "deplatformed" by yelling for help from an actual human on other social media sites.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Private organization that enjoys the legal protections of a platform. Reclassify them as a publisher. Can't have it both ways. You absolutely can, and that's even been a norm in the US since CDA Section 230 was implemented specifically to make that possible, within certain bounds, which Twitter sits well within. Admittedly, that's been progressively chipped away recently.
- alharith 6y ago
  Yes I am aware of CDA section 230. Another way of saying what I said is I think CDA section 230 needs to be repealed, or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking against free speech to qualify for protection under the act. Joe Biden is for the idea: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-nytimes-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking The government being selective about which expressive choices by a platform operator are get favorable treatment under law rapidly gets into violations of actual Constitutional free speech protections, unlike the private actions that people are making fake “free speech” claims about.
    - alharith 6y ago
      By the same token, the government enacting legislation that gives these same tech companies blanket protection over the clear bias they institute is by extension limiting free speech by government law. In other words, the government passed a law that enabled others to limit free speech. Wonder if this angle has been tried in court yet?
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > By the same token, the government enacting legislation that gives these same tech companies blanket protection over the clear bias they institute is by extension limiting free speech by government law. No, it's not. Permitting private bias without government consequence is the definition of free speech. Restricting it is contrary to free speech, and is permitted only to the extent that it fits within recognized Constitutional limitations on the right of free speech.
nojito 6y ago
Yup I agree. Internet companies have enjoyed the cost benefits from being classified as both a platform and a publisher. It was clever of them to convince the internet community that it's about "free speech" when it's actually always about the costs.

fantastisch 6y ago

When private organizations are regulating the speech of the population? It's a necessary slope. Because doing it without centralized government control is bad. But regulation of speech can be good. Take a look at https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189120.shtml https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189120.shtml for an interesting discussion.

spinach 6y ago

Twitter already regulates speech though, to their own agenda. I got into the gender debate recently (a big mistake), and so many gender critical people get suspended or banned just for believing in reality (that males can't be women) and standing up for women's rights. A man (Zuby) got suspended for simply saying 'dude' to someone. People get their accounts deleted for 'misgendering' people. Twitter is already, hardly a bastion of free speech.

driverdan 6y ago
> and so many gender critical people get suspended or banned just for believing in reality (that males can't be women) and standing up for women's rights Good. They should be banning bigots. Don't like it? Start your own service where bigots can roam free.
_fizz_buzz_ 6y ago
> Twitter already regulates speech though, to their own agenda. Are you saying that if someone has a website, they shouldn't be allowed to set the rules for that site. Are you going to allow me to post whatever I want on your website?
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Not parent commenter, but ... Actually, I think certain sites are so prolific as to basically amount to public spaces and that we should have agreed principles by which they can[|not] moderate an individual's speech, because they effectively can have a real effect on a person's ability to "speak" in "public".
  - badRNG 6y ago
    Perhaps certain sites became prolific due in part to the moderation decisions they make for their platforms. For instance, there are other sites that take a very different moderation strategy (4chan comes to mind.) If Twitter developed a moderation strategy like Voat or 4chan, likely people would leave for a company that utilized a different moderation style. Then you'd be wondering why there isn't "free speech" on that platform. This gets to the root of the issue, the crux of the argument isn't whether one is entitled to have a public space to spread ideas, but whether one is entitled to a platform by which their ideas can be spread. A platform whose ubiquity is paradoxically dependent on that platform's ability to moderate what type of discourse is permitted.