5 ms·

I am actually OK with this despite the motives of the people who want to introduce this legislation.

by Ididntdothis 6y ago

Traster 6y ago
Yeah, because as we all know, if you let the fascists get away with a little bit, they're satisified.
- Spivak 6y ago
  But the PITA is that they’re right and Twitter did a massively stupid thing and just painted a huge target on the back of every site with user generated content and moderation.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    Think about the leverage this gives the administration. Sure, Twitter pushes a lot of garbage content, but singling them out puts the administration in a position to demand compliance from others under threat of losing their 230 status. This is an incredibly fascist move disguised as an egalitarian one.
    - Simulacra 6y ago
      Think about the leverage Twitter already has! If Twitter wanted to, and not saying they haven't, they could easily sway an election, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Surely you can find a better reason than simply saying this is fascist.
      - save_ferris 6y ago
        Could Twitter sway an election? Maybe, but it’s speculative. This move is concrete and would give the president the power to go to any tech company and say “do as I wish or I will gut you” in no uncertain terms. This is classic power consolidation and is a core strategy of fascist regimes. I’m in no way being hyperbolic here. I’m not Twitter doesn’t deserve to be regulated, because they do. However, choosing to conditionally regulate companies this way is a great way to fuel corruption because the regulators get to pick and choose who to regulate instead of universally applicable law.
        Simulacra 6y ago
        I'm afraid this is the same scenario no matter which regulator is in power. The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. What's stopping the next administration from doing the same?
        save_ferris 6y ago
        > I'm afraid this is the same scenario no matter which regulator is in power. Yes, we trust regulators to regulate effectively and not to single out companies when they do things the president doesn’t like. > The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. How is the prior administration’s policy to towards race and gender in any way relevant to this administration’s policy towards one tech company? > What's stopping the next administration from doing the same? Well, if this action results in a drop in public approval of the administration, the next administration is probably not going to be incentivized to do it. Further, this line of questioning provides zero substance as you could ask that question of any scenario. “It’s OK now because no one will be stopped from doing it in the future” is not a valid argument.
        mcphage 6y ago
        > The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. What do you mean when you say this?
blhack 6y ago
It's something that internet freedom advocates have wanted for a long time, and it's unfortunate that these are the people introducing it. edit: people seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying, or maybe misunderstanding what is being implied in the article. Section 230 is GOOD, and it is something freedom-fighters have advocated for for a long time. What I'm saying is that freedom-advocates have been in favor of using the threat of losing 230 protection as a way of compelling platforms not to censor speech that they don't like.
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  You always have to look at the facts and not align with a party. Maybe one party does more stuff you like but if the other party does something you want, you should support it.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  I'm curious: What internet freedom advocates? Because the EFF seems to believes in section 230 being a generally good thing. And back during the Christchurch shootings when there were proposed limitations to section 230 to make companies liable for hate speech on their platform, there was an uproar from the internet freedom advocates that this would result in censorship and less free speech.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Your curiosity is rewarded: https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/?index=%22lobbying-disclosures%22&size=10&keyword=%22twitter%22&sort=[{%22_score%22:true},{%22field%22:%22registrant.name%22,%22order%22:%22asc%22} https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/?index=%22lobbying-disc...] Gosh what an ugly URL. It's the lobbying reports for Twitter. The biggest internet "freedom" advocates are the paid lobbyists of the tech industry.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    > Because the EFF seems to believes in section 230 being a generally good thing. Citation for claim? https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
shadowgovt 6y ago
I think I'd miss the President's tweets. But if S230 protections are significantly curtailed, his tendency to tweet off the cuff without having his facts lined up in a row would put him near the top of the chopping block to kick off the service for liability reasons.
- slg 6y ago
  This is the part I don't get. Don't these people realize that losing this protection would actually force Twitter's hand to "censor" people?
  - autokad 6y ago
    the way I understand it, they are censoring people, which is why some are saying they shouldn't have the 230 protection
    - bediger4000 6y ago
      I put together a Twitter Q-sona. I followed a bunch of prominent and not-so-prominent Qanons. The way I understand it, they are not censoring people, the people claiming to be "shadow banned" and "twitter deleting my followers" and "I get no traction on my tweets", are misunderstanding Twitter, or technology, or both. There's a huge misunderstanding of how large twitter is, how many tweets flow through, and how many people are tweeting. My understanding is based on personal research. What's yours based on?
      - autokad 6y ago
        The most notable recent example is Aytu BioScience, an aultraviolet light blood treatment company banned, we all know the story. I thought about going into one of the many particular individuals that have been banned, that is well know to most people except exceptional researchers like you, but I figured it would just be easy to start you with a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E
tensor 6y ago
I would be OK with this if Trump was banned from Twitter after this, but you know that won't happen.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  If Section 230 protections were removed, Trump would have to be banned immediately, because lawsuits against Twitter would be filed within hours. Which is somewhat the point: if you remove Section 230, there will no longer be anything like Twitter or Facebook.

I am actually OK with this despite the motives of the people who want to introduce this legislation.

Traster 6y ago

Yeah, because as we all know, if you let the fascists get away with a little bit, they're satisified.

Spivak 6y ago
But the PITA is that they’re right and Twitter did a massively stupid thing and just painted a huge target on the back of every site with user generated content and moderation.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  Think about the leverage this gives the administration. Sure, Twitter pushes a lot of garbage content, but singling them out puts the administration in a position to demand compliance from others under threat of losing their 230 status. This is an incredibly fascist move disguised as an egalitarian one.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Think about the leverage Twitter already has! If Twitter wanted to, and not saying they haven't, they could easily sway an election, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Surely you can find a better reason than simply saying this is fascist.
    - save_ferris 6y ago
      Could Twitter sway an election? Maybe, but it’s speculative. This move is concrete and would give the president the power to go to any tech company and say “do as I wish or I will gut you” in no uncertain terms. This is classic power consolidation and is a core strategy of fascist regimes. I’m in no way being hyperbolic here. I’m not Twitter doesn’t deserve to be regulated, because they do. However, choosing to conditionally regulate companies this way is a great way to fuel corruption because the regulators get to pick and choose who to regulate instead of universally applicable law.
      - Simulacra 6y ago
        I'm afraid this is the same scenario no matter which regulator is in power. The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. What's stopping the next administration from doing the same?
        save_ferris 6y ago
        > I'm afraid this is the same scenario no matter which regulator is in power. Yes, we trust regulators to regulate effectively and not to single out companies when they do things the president doesn’t like. > The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. How is the prior administration’s policy to towards race and gender in any way relevant to this administration’s policy towards one tech company? > What's stopping the next administration from doing the same? Well, if this action results in a drop in public approval of the administration, the next administration is probably not going to be incentivized to do it. Further, this line of questioning provides zero substance as you could ask that question of any scenario. “It’s OK now because no one will be stopped from doing it in the future” is not a valid argument.
        mcphage 6y ago
        > The previous administration became the arbiter of truth as to gender and race. What do you mean when you say this?

blhack 6y ago

It's something that internet freedom advocates have wanted for a long time, and it's unfortunate that these are the people introducing it. edit: people seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying, or maybe misunderstanding what is being implied in the article. Section 230 is GOOD, and it is something freedom-fighters have advocated for for a long time. What I'm saying is that freedom-advocates have been in favor of using the threat of losing 230 protection as a way of compelling platforms not to censor speech that they don't like.

Ididntdothis 6y ago
You always have to look at the facts and not align with a party. Maybe one party does more stuff you like but if the other party does something you want, you should support it.
fzeroracer 6y ago
I'm curious: What internet freedom advocates? Because the EFF seems to believes in section 230 being a generally good thing. And back during the Christchurch shootings when there were proposed limitations to section 230 to make companies liable for hate speech on their platform, there was an uproar from the internet freedom advocates that this would result in censorship and less free speech.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Your curiosity is rewarded: https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/?index=%22lobbying-disclosures%22&size=10&keyword=%22twitter%22&sort=[{%22_score%22:true},{%22field%22:%22registrant.name%22,%22order%22:%22asc%22} https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/?index=%22lobbying-disc...] Gosh what an ugly URL. It's the lobbying reports for Twitter. The biggest internet "freedom" advocates are the paid lobbyists of the tech industry.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  > Because the EFF seems to believes in section 230 being a generally good thing. Citation for claim? https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

shadowgovt 6y ago

I think I'd miss the President's tweets. But if S230 protections are significantly curtailed, his tendency to tweet off the cuff without having his facts lined up in a row would put him near the top of the chopping block to kick off the service for liability reasons.

slg 6y ago
This is the part I don't get. Don't these people realize that losing this protection would actually force Twitter's hand to "censor" people?
- autokad 6y ago
  the way I understand it, they are censoring people, which is why some are saying they shouldn't have the 230 protection
  - bediger4000 6y ago
    I put together a Twitter Q-sona. I followed a bunch of prominent and not-so-prominent Qanons. The way I understand it, they are not censoring people, the people claiming to be "shadow banned" and "twitter deleting my followers" and "I get no traction on my tweets", are misunderstanding Twitter, or technology, or both. There's a huge misunderstanding of how large twitter is, how many tweets flow through, and how many people are tweeting. My understanding is based on personal research. What's yours based on?
    - autokad 6y ago
      The most notable recent example is Aytu BioScience, an aultraviolet light blood treatment company banned, we all know the story. I thought about going into one of the many particular individuals that have been banned, that is well know to most people except exceptional researchers like you, but I figured it would just be easy to start you with a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E

tensor 6y ago

I would be OK with this if Trump was banned from Twitter after this, but you know that won't happen.

pwinnski 6y ago
If Section 230 protections were removed, Trump would have to be banned immediately, because lawsuits against Twitter would be filed within hours. Which is somewhat the point: if you remove Section 230, there will no longer be anything like Twitter or Facebook.