3 ms·

Newspapers have restricted what they publish for centuries. They don't allow libellous, defamatory, salacious or inappropriate comments for example. So it sou

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.

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.