2 ms·

“Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stan

“Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. It’s comical to think that anyone has the ability to be the arbiter of truth and specifically in this case, the truthiness of the statement is completely unverifiable as it’s a forecast. BTW, don’t think voter fraud with mail in votes is possible? Think again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrae_Dowless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrae_Dowless The GOP knows it’s an issue better than anyone since they leverage it heavily.

Goronmon 6y ago
“Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. You aren't describing "neutrality" you are describing "feigning ignorance". And even if this could be considered "neutral" why is that something to push for (not just on Twitter but on every private business/platform/etc in existence) and what does this have to do with the law in question?
- creddit 6y ago
  It is exactly describing neutrality on truthiness. There literally is no other definition. You take no side on truth. I wouldn’t, nor have I seen anyone, suggest that this is something to push for on every private business/platform/etc in existence. The point to be made is twofold: 1) Have the large social media platforms developed into general spheres of public discourse and thus have become central to ongoing function of public life? If so, then ANY active control over the narratives allowed on the platforms if is of critical concern to the function of Democracy. 2) Separate from point #1 which is broader than Section 230, is whether or not control over the narratives allowed on the platforms is equivalent to editorial moderation at publishers, changing them from being governed by Section 230? To be clear, I don’t know the answers to either of these questions. But I sure as shit know that I would prefer major realms of public discourse to be free of some bull shit “arbiter of truth” controlling the presentation of people’s thoughts in them.

Goronmon 6y ago

“Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. You aren't describing "neutrality" you are describing "feigning ignorance". And even if this could be considered "neutral" why is that something to push for (not just on Twitter but on every private business/platform/etc in existence) and what does this have to do with the law in question?

creddit 6y ago
It is exactly describing neutrality on truthiness. There literally is no other definition. You take no side on truth. I wouldn’t, nor have I seen anyone, suggest that this is something to push for on every private business/platform/etc in existence. The point to be made is twofold: 1) Have the large social media platforms developed into general spheres of public discourse and thus have become central to ongoing function of public life? If so, then ANY active control over the narratives allowed on the platforms if is of critical concern to the function of Democracy. 2) Separate from point #1 which is broader than Section 230, is whether or not control over the narratives allowed on the platforms is equivalent to editorial moderation at publishers, changing them from being governed by Section 230? To be clear, I don’t know the answers to either of these questions. But I sure as shit know that I would prefer major realms of public discourse to be free of some bull shit “arbiter of truth” controlling the presentation of people’s thoughts in them.