6 ms·

I think that’s a simplistic view. No one is arguing Twitter is comparable to a store with a display window. The reality is that Tweets are broadcasted to billio

I think that’s a simplistic view. No one is arguing Twitter is comparable to a store with a display window. The reality is that Tweets are broadcasted to billions of people. It’s a new reality. It’s a newspaper where anyone and everyone is authoring anything, including presidents, and with the roll of a die, the message is amplified to a multiple of the expected audience. Twitter may technically be a private platform run by a private company, but the issue not one of semantics, it’s about ethics and morals and how we compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech.

threeseed 6y ago
Newspapers have restricted what they publish for centuries. They don't allow libellous, defamatory, salacious or inappropriate comments for example. So it sounds 'new tech' hasn't really changed anything.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  Newspapers hire and pay people to write for them and exercise editorial control on everything that's published. That's very different from, say, a public restroom where people write on the walls. The owner of the restroom is not responsible for what people write on their walls.
  - suff 6y ago
    It would be, if the owner began editorializing the content, because the point at which they get involved, they lose neutrality, and therefore Section 230 immunity protection.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > Newspapers hire and pay people to write for them Newspapers also have zero obligation to convey the words of the President, and by frequently contextualise them.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      And newspapers get sued if their paid editors publish defamatory content.
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        And that's totally fair, because the hired the person, vouched for them, submitted them to editorial scrutiny an, still, decided to publish defamatory content.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Newspapers have restricted what they publish for centuries. Absolutely. And they don't say "we're just a platform transporting information", they restrict what they publish. > They don't allow libellous, defamatory, salacious or inappropriate comments for example. They do. And they get sued for it, and they can lose, see Gawker. Precisely because they are not like Twitter.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  Newspapers do that because they are liable for what they publish. Twitter is not liable for what it publishes. Why should it not be liable? The answer is because they are just providing a platform and others are publishing. But the moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then they should probably be liable, right?
  - jeremyjh 6y ago
    > But the moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then they should probably be liable, right? They've always done some editing and removal of certain content. In this particular case, was anything modified or censored though? It seems more like Trump had his say, and Twitter had theirs. Is Trump saying that Twitter can't also express themselves on their platform?
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    but newspapers aren't required to express support for particular political candidates or viewpoints. That can get into trouble for publishing libel, ie maliciously presenting false statements as fact, but the criteria for what constitutes libel are very narrow. A newspaper can certainly publish an opinion like 'Politician X is a fool whose proposal should be ignored.'
  - visarga 6y ago
    > But the moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then they should probably be liable, right? There are degrees to moderation, but not to liability. This black or white approach doesn't seem appropriate. They should be liable in a degree proportional to the moderation they introduce.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Why should they "probably be liable"? Twitter isn't liable for illegal content posted by their users, as long as they take it down in time and make good faith efforts to keep it from being posted in the first place. If they weren't free from liability then a service like Twitter would need heavy human moderation and be extremely expensive to operate - perhaps it wouldn't exist at all. That's the only reason this non-liability exists. It has nothing to do with moderation or censorship. Twitter, as any other web property, have the right to curate their platform and make it pleasant for their other users. It's their personal property.
krapp 6y ago
>it’s about ethics and morals and how we compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech. But that's not what this is really about. This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future. It's about fears of a nonexistent conspiracy controlling the media becoming the basis for authoritarian laws meant to stamp out that menace - a phenomenon which never goes well, historically. It's about Americans hating "the left" so much that they'll support an obvious violation of the First Amendment as long as it silences their ideological enemies.
- akira2501 6y ago
  > This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future. That is the impetus in this case, but that doesn't mean it doesn't border on questions we've been slowly grappling with for some time now, nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. > the basis for authoritarian laws meant to stamp out that menace I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it? In a sense, I think it's an interesting question, if you're willing to editorialize content on behalf of your users why should you get safe-harbor protection? You clearly are willing to put the man power and technology into it, shouldn't you then be liable for content posted on your site? > It's about Americans hating "the left" so much that they'll support an obvious violation of the First Amendment as long as it silences their ideological enemies. What's the obvious First Amendment violation here? If you act as a conduit for certain types of speech, you're liable for that speech. We're just bringing "content neutral providers" into the same realm that everyone else already was.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it? If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters. >nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an answer. >What's the obvious First Amendment violation here? The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from infringing freedom of speech - the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, to do exactly what the First Amendment was created to prevent. Granted, the First Amendment only explicitly applies to Congress, but I feel like if states can be accused of violating it (as they often were regarding quarantine and shelter-at-home orders) then the President can as well.
DEADBEEFC0FFEE 6y ago
I think you're overestimating the number of users. Hardly anyone I know uses Twitter. It may be a big thing for you but it's largely irrelevant for others. It's an opt-in service
gamblor956 6y ago
The reality is that Tweets are broadcasted to billions of people. No, they're not. You have to visit the Twitter website or otherwise pull the data from some source to get tweets. it’s about ethics and morals and how we compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech. It's technically trivial to create your own Twitter. There are indeed plenty of competitors to Twitter. Twitter has no moral or ethical obligation to carry lies. Indeed, the opposite is true: because of their market position, they should be ethically and morally obligated to prevent lies from being spread through their platform because they have the greatest reach.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  >No, they're not. You have to visit the Twitter website or otherwise pull the data from some source to get tweets. Would you make this same argument when it comes to privacy? Technically it's your computer sending your data to Google/Facebook, therefore you are giving them permission to use your data, because you're so generously providing it to them. Technically this is true and any real privacy solution would have to address this point, but it's clearly not what is done in legislation.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    I don't understand your point. When you send your data to Google or Facebook by explicitly providing that data, you are giving them permission to use that data for purposes of providing the service for which the data is granted. This is true everywhere, even in the EU. If you're asking whether that upload would grant Googlebook broader rights to use your data, then the answer is yes in the US because there are no laws currently restricting such use, but no in Europe because EU law says permission must be explicitly granted for other uses.

threeseed 6y ago

Newspapers have restricted what they publish for centuries. They don't allow libellous, defamatory, salacious or inappropriate comments for example. So it sounds 'new tech' hasn't really changed anything.

rbanffy 6y ago
Newspapers hire and pay people to write for them and exercise editorial control on everything that's published. That's very different from, say, a public restroom where people write on the walls. The owner of the restroom is not responsible for what people write on their walls.
- suff 6y ago
  It would be, if the owner began editorializing the content, because the point at which they get involved, they lose neutrality, and therefore Section 230 immunity protection.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Newspapers hire and pay people to write for them Newspapers also have zero obligation to convey the words of the President, and by frequently contextualise them.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    And newspapers get sued if their paid editors publish defamatory content.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      And that's totally fair, because the hired the person, vouched for them, submitted them to editorial scrutiny an, still, decided to publish defamatory content.
luckylion 6y ago
> Newspapers have restricted what they publish for centuries. Absolutely. And they don't say "we're just a platform transporting information", they restrict what they publish. > They don't allow libellous, defamatory, salacious or inappropriate comments for example. They do. And they get sued for it, and they can lose, see Gawker. Precisely because they are not like Twitter.
jtbayly 6y ago
Newspapers do that because they are liable for what they publish. Twitter is not liable for what it publishes. Why should it not be liable? The answer is because they are just providing a platform and others are publishing. But the moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then they should probably be liable, right?
- jeremyjh 6y ago
  > But the moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then they should probably be liable, right? They've always done some editing and removal of certain content. In this particular case, was anything modified or censored though? It seems more like Trump had his say, and Twitter had theirs. Is Trump saying that Twitter can't also express themselves on their platform?
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  but newspapers aren't required to express support for particular political candidates or viewpoints. That can get into trouble for publishing libel, ie maliciously presenting false statements as fact, but the criteria for what constitutes libel are very narrow. A newspaper can certainly publish an opinion like 'Politician X is a fool whose proposal should be ignored.'
- visarga 6y ago
  > But the moment they use their platform to modify and censor what people publish, then they should probably be liable, right? There are degrees to moderation, but not to liability. This black or white approach doesn't seem appropriate. They should be liable in a degree proportional to the moderation they introduce.
- triceratops 6y ago
  Why should they "probably be liable"? Twitter isn't liable for illegal content posted by their users, as long as they take it down in time and make good faith efforts to keep it from being posted in the first place. If they weren't free from liability then a service like Twitter would need heavy human moderation and be extremely expensive to operate - perhaps it wouldn't exist at all. That's the only reason this non-liability exists. It has nothing to do with moderation or censorship. Twitter, as any other web property, have the right to curate their platform and make it pleasant for their other users. It's their personal property.

krapp 6y ago

>it’s about ethics and morals and how we compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech. But that's not what this is really about. This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future. It's about fears of a nonexistent conspiracy controlling the media becoming the basis for authoritarian laws meant to stamp out that menace - a phenomenon which never goes well, historically. It's about Americans hating "the left" so much that they'll support an obvious violation of the First Amendment as long as it silences their ideological enemies.

akira2501 6y ago
> This is about the President being angry that Twitter fact checked him and using executive power to create a chilling effect against any platform doing so in the future. That is the impetus in this case, but that doesn't mean it doesn't border on questions we've been slowly grappling with for some time now, nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. > the basis for authoritarian laws meant to stamp out that menace I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it? In a sense, I think it's an interesting question, if you're willing to editorialize content on behalf of your users why should you get safe-harbor protection? You clearly are willing to put the man power and technology into it, shouldn't you then be liable for content posted on your site? > It's about Americans hating "the left" so much that they'll support an obvious violation of the First Amendment as long as it silences their ideological enemies. What's the obvious First Amendment violation here? If you act as a conduit for certain types of speech, you're liable for that speech. We're just bringing "content neutral providers" into the same realm that everyone else already was.
- krapp 6y ago
  >I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it? If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters. >nor does it mean we have to ignore that question. We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an answer. >What's the obvious First Amendment violation here? The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from infringing freedom of speech - the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, to do exactly what the First Amendment was created to prevent. Granted, the First Amendment only explicitly applies to Congress, but I feel like if states can be accused of violating it (as they often were regarding quarantine and shelter-at-home orders) then the President can as well.

DEADBEEFC0FFEE 6y ago

I think you're overestimating the number of users. Hardly anyone I know uses Twitter. It may be a big thing for you but it's largely irrelevant for others. It's an opt-in service

gamblor956 6y ago

The reality is that Tweets are broadcasted to billions of people. No, they're not. You have to visit the Twitter website or otherwise pull the data from some source to get tweets. it’s about ethics and morals and how we compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech. It's technically trivial to create your own Twitter. There are indeed plenty of competitors to Twitter. Twitter has no moral or ethical obligation to carry lies. Indeed, the opposite is true: because of their market position, they should be ethically and morally obligated to prevent lies from being spread through their platform because they have the greatest reach.

Mirioron 6y ago
>No, they're not. You have to visit the Twitter website or otherwise pull the data from some source to get tweets. Would you make this same argument when it comes to privacy? Technically it's your computer sending your data to Google/Facebook, therefore you are giving them permission to use your data, because you're so generously providing it to them. Technically this is true and any real privacy solution would have to address this point, but it's clearly not what is done in legislation.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  I don't understand your point. When you send your data to Google or Facebook by explicitly providing that data, you are giving them permission to use that data for purposes of providing the service for which the data is granted. This is true everywhere, even in the EU. If you're asking whether that upload would grant Googlebook broader rights to use your data, then the answer is yes in the US because there are no laws currently restricting such use, but no in Europe because EU law says permission must be explicitly granted for other uses.