5 ms·

Well, is Verizon allowed to use packet injection to "fact check" a website you view over their internet connection? Because seems to be presenting themselves a

Well, is Verizon allowed to use packet injection to "fact check" a website you view over their internet connection? Because seems to be presenting themselves as a neutral platform, which they have shown themselves to not be. EDIT: Just to clarify, obviously Twitter is not presenting themselves to users as a neutral platform. But for legal purposes, they are cloaking themselves in the same privileged status as a phone company, when they clearly are not.

tombert 6y ago
A) Twitter has never presented itself as a neutral platform. They've banned white supremacists, dangerous conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones, and even left-leaning people like Destiny when he joked about how he was going to bomb Comcast. B) Verizon (Comcast, Spectrum, etc...) are closer to something like a utility. I wouldn't be supportive of a water or electricity company not providing services to people I disagree with. Twitter is not a utility, it's a glorified fortune-cookie-sharing site. It's a not a "right", and there's no reason that you should feel entitled to it.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens not just _a_ place where it happens. It's an unfortunate state of affairs that they happen to be a private company with a bias.
  - asdgopiahsogfi 6y ago
    Here's simple fact check. Twitter is not _the_ place where political discourse happens. You're discussing politics on HN right now.
    - partyboat1586 6y ago
      It's the place that regularly gets quoted on major networks and newspapers. This is a minority website with nowhere near as much impact.
      - asdgopiahsogfi 6y ago
        That still doesn't make it _the_ place for political discourse. Reddit gets quoted quite often. Tons of politicians do AMA on Reddit and Facebook. Just because Trump is on Twitter doesn't make it special.
        partyboat1586 6y ago
        Every major public figure is on Twitter. That is the difference. Reddit is still small fry.
        pas 6y ago
        That's not how these kinds of "facts" work. If someone tried to use this during some kind of proceeding the court will determine this. (Using a jury or not, expert witnesses or not, doesn't matter.) Usually fact checking "services" like snopes.com, politifact, or WaPo with the pinocchio heads, have a consistent model about what they are willing to touch, how they approach it, and how they determine factualness, etc. Just throwing out that Twitter is or isn't _the_ platform makes no sense.
nkassis 6y ago
I believe they can, comcast actually has injected javascript into websites in the past using a similar technique. https://gizmodo.com/comcast-to-customer-who-noticed-it-secretly-injecting-c-1821235362 https://gizmodo.com/comcast-to-customer-who-noticed-it-secre...
- holler 6y ago
  can you imagine the horror on HN if this were really a thing?
  - beart 6y ago
    No need to imagine it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15890551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15890551
fooey 6y ago
1. Verizon is a common carrier, Twitter is not 2. Twitter has never had any obligation to be a neutral platform
rsynnott 6y ago
> Because seems to be presenting themselves as a neutral platform Eh? Twitter bans accounts _all the time_. It hides stuff from search, and hides potentially explicit content behind an "are you sure you want to see this?" It is in no way a neutral platform. Fact-checking world leaders was originally conceived by twitter as an alternative to just banning them when they get dangerous.
- apostacy 6y ago
  > Eh? Twitter bans accounts _all the time_. It hides stuff from search, and hides potentially explicit content behind an "are you sure you want to see this?" Right, so why are they trying to claim that they are a neutral platform then, for legal purposes, when they very clearly are not one?? Twitter responds to any lawsuits by claiming that they are a neutral disinterested platform, when they very clearly are not. They enjoy the same legal protections as the phone company, when they obviously are not at all the same!
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    > Right, so why are they trying to claim that they are a neutral platform then, for legal purposes, when they very clearly are not one?? Where are they claiming that? There's no such requirement under the CDA (if there was, then any website with a stated political or other stance and a comments section would be in serious trouble). > Twitter responds to any lawsuits by claiming that they are a neutral disinterested platform, when they very clearly are not. Examples of this? > They enjoy the same legal protections as the phone company No, they don't. Totally different protections.
CyberDildonics 6y ago
Legally they can probably get away with it, since it has happened with other ISPs. The technical reason this doesn't happen is due to your connection a website being encrypted.
space_fountain 6y ago
> But for legal purposes, they are cloaking themselves in the same privileged status as a phone company Hum I don't think that could possibly be true. What leads you to think this? Phone companies existed before Section 230 and as far as I know their behavior didn't change. Have you read Section 230? It definitely reads like it was passed to give entities like Twitter more power to delete objectionable content and it definitely doesn't read to me like it obligates them to be neutral. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

tombert 6y ago

A) Twitter has never presented itself as a neutral platform. They've banned white supremacists, dangerous conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones, and even left-leaning people like Destiny when he joked about how he was going to bomb Comcast. B) Verizon (Comcast, Spectrum, etc...) are closer to something like a utility. I wouldn't be supportive of a water or electricity company not providing services to people I disagree with. Twitter is not a utility, it's a glorified fortune-cookie-sharing site. It's a not a "right", and there's no reason that you should feel entitled to it.

partyboat1586 6y ago
Twitter is _the_ place where political discourse happens not just _a_ place where it happens. It's an unfortunate state of affairs that they happen to be a private company with a bias.
- asdgopiahsogfi 6y ago
  Here's simple fact check. Twitter is not _the_ place where political discourse happens. You're discussing politics on HN right now.
  - partyboat1586 6y ago
    It's the place that regularly gets quoted on major networks and newspapers. This is a minority website with nowhere near as much impact.
    - asdgopiahsogfi 6y ago
      That still doesn't make it _the_ place for political discourse. Reddit gets quoted quite often. Tons of politicians do AMA on Reddit and Facebook. Just because Trump is on Twitter doesn't make it special.
      - partyboat1586 6y ago
        Every major public figure is on Twitter. That is the difference. Reddit is still small fry.
      - pas 6y ago
        That's not how these kinds of "facts" work. If someone tried to use this during some kind of proceeding the court will determine this. (Using a jury or not, expert witnesses or not, doesn't matter.) Usually fact checking "services" like snopes.com, politifact, or WaPo with the pinocchio heads, have a consistent model about what they are willing to touch, how they approach it, and how they determine factualness, etc. Just throwing out that Twitter is or isn't _the_ platform makes no sense.

nkassis 6y ago

I believe they can, comcast actually has injected javascript into websites in the past using a similar technique. https://gizmodo.com/comcast-to-customer-who-noticed-it-secretly-injecting-c-1821235362 https://gizmodo.com/comcast-to-customer-who-noticed-it-secre...

holler 6y ago
can you imagine the horror on HN if this were really a thing?
- beart 6y ago
  No need to imagine it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15890551 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15890551

fooey 6y ago

1. Verizon is a common carrier, Twitter is not 2. Twitter has never had any obligation to be a neutral platform

rsynnott 6y ago

> Because seems to be presenting themselves as a neutral platform Eh? Twitter bans accounts _all the time_. It hides stuff from search, and hides potentially explicit content behind an "are you sure you want to see this?" It is in no way a neutral platform. Fact-checking world leaders was originally conceived by twitter as an alternative to just banning them when they get dangerous.

apostacy 6y ago
> Eh? Twitter bans accounts _all the time_. It hides stuff from search, and hides potentially explicit content behind an "are you sure you want to see this?" Right, so why are they trying to claim that they are a neutral platform then, for legal purposes, when they very clearly are not one?? Twitter responds to any lawsuits by claiming that they are a neutral disinterested platform, when they very clearly are not. They enjoy the same legal protections as the phone company, when they obviously are not at all the same!
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > Right, so why are they trying to claim that they are a neutral platform then, for legal purposes, when they very clearly are not one?? Where are they claiming that? There's no such requirement under the CDA (if there was, then any website with a stated political or other stance and a comments section would be in serious trouble). > Twitter responds to any lawsuits by claiming that they are a neutral disinterested platform, when they very clearly are not. Examples of this? > They enjoy the same legal protections as the phone company No, they don't. Totally different protections.

CyberDildonics 6y ago

Legally they can probably get away with it, since it has happened with other ISPs. The technical reason this doesn't happen is due to your connection a website being encrypted.

space_fountain 6y ago

> But for legal purposes, they are cloaking themselves in the same privileged status as a phone company Hum I don't think that could possibly be true. What leads you to think this? Phone companies existed before Section 230 and as far as I know their behavior didn't change. Have you read Section 230? It definitely reads like it was passed to give entities like Twitter more power to delete objectionable content and it definitely doesn't read to me like it obligates them to be neutral. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230