5 ms·

Twitter is not equivalent to some obscure knitting forum. It is huge. So huge that it gets quoted in nearly every mainstream media article. Twitter matters to p

Twitter is not equivalent to some obscure knitting forum. It is huge. So huge that it gets quoted in nearly every mainstream media article. Twitter matters to political discourse, knitting doesn't.

roganp 6y ago
The owners of printing presses have even more power, but the government does not mandate open access to those machines for dispensing speech. Unfettered access to twitter is not akin to free speech.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  Twitter is essentially a big public square the results of which end up getting printed by mainstream press. Publishers are also under more legal restrictions than Twitter is.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    No, publishers can be as biased as they want, unlike the new requirements here.
    - perf1 6y ago
      Twitter can also go the publisher route and be biased as much as they want.
- stale2002 6y ago
  Newspapers are publishers, and are subject to rules and regulations for being publishers. Twitter would not be mandate to open up access to everyone. Instead, the proposed legal changes would merely treat them as publishers, if they act like publishers, and therefore twitter would not have liability protections anymore.
  - roganp 6y ago
    So as soon as they make any kind of restriction on the use of their platform they become publishers? That's quite a stretch. That would have the same effect: it would require them to provide unfettered access for anyone, for any purpose.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > That would have the same effect If they don't like the section 230 laws, that already exist, then they should go lobby Congress to change it or something. But right now, if you act as a publisher, then you lose certain protections. That's how that law works.
gamblor956 6y ago
Twitter matters to political discourse, knitting doesn't. Doesn't matter. Twitter is a privately owned platform not a public one. SCOTUS has already said that simply being open to the public does not make a business a public platform, see Pruneyard v Robins, applying this reasoning to privately-owned malls. And yes, that makes all the difference, since SCOTUS has repeatedly held that publicly owned spaces like public parks and main streets are subject to first amendment requirements.
- Reelin 6y ago
  Except it's not nearly as simple as you make out here. In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) SCOTUS described social media websites as similar to a public square and ruled that the state couldn't block access to them in an overly broad manner. Being open to the public does change how a business is regulated (see the ADA and Civil Rights Act among others) even if it doesn't make it a "public platform" specifically. However, a reasonable case can be made that Twitter has _intentionally_ positioned themselves as a public platform and so the case you cite could be argued not to apply. Alternatively, Twitter could be argued to be editorializing. If that were the case, presumably they wouldn't really be a public platform but rather a publisher. But if that's the case, shouldn't they be held liable for all the nonsense that people post there? The situation isn't clear at all even though many people on both sides of the debate frequently claim that it is.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    That's not at all what Packingham says. That ruling was about a sex offender's right to access a website on which he could engage in first amendment activities without government restriction. It was not about whether a social media website was a public platform or whether the websites had to allow the appellant access. Moreover, many of the activities identified in the ruling also apply to private malls...which the courts have already ruled several times are not public forums for first amendment purposes (Lloyd and Pruneyard). Being open to the public does change how a business is regulated (see the ADA and Civil Rights Act among others) even if it doesn't make it a "public platform" specifically This is true. A statute of Congress can place restrictions on businesses. Last I checked, the President is not a member of Congress, and cannot unilaterally override congressional laws. Moreover, SCOTUS cases have ruled that privately owned facilities are not subject to the "limited purpose" test. It doesn't matter that they've held themselves open to the public, it matters that they're privately owned. (See Lloyd and Pruneyard, explicitly addressing this point.)
thephyber 6y ago
> It is huge. Currently. Might not be long after this change to Section 230 enforcement. > Twitter matters to political discourse, knitting doesn't. I don't follow this logic. There are substitutes for Twitter, even banned users can view publicly posted content on Twitter, and the CDA Section 230 has nothing to do with "political discourse" -- it describes all content. I'm also fascinated that you used the word "political" and not "policy". All things "political" could vanish tomorrow and the world would be better off. Not being able to discuss policy issues/ideas would be tragic.

Twitter is not equivalent to some obscure knitting forum. It is huge. So huge that it gets quoted in nearly every mainstream media article. Twitter matters to political discourse, knitting doesn't.

roganp 6y ago

The owners of printing presses have even more power, but the government does not mandate open access to those machines for dispensing speech. Unfettered access to twitter is not akin to free speech.

partyboat1586 6y ago
Twitter is essentially a big public square the results of which end up getting printed by mainstream press. Publishers are also under more legal restrictions than Twitter is.
- belltaco 6y ago
  No, publishers can be as biased as they want, unlike the new requirements here.
  - perf1 6y ago
    Twitter can also go the publisher route and be biased as much as they want.
stale2002 6y ago
Newspapers are publishers, and are subject to rules and regulations for being publishers. Twitter would not be mandate to open up access to everyone. Instead, the proposed legal changes would merely treat them as publishers, if they act like publishers, and therefore twitter would not have liability protections anymore.
- roganp 6y ago
  So as soon as they make any kind of restriction on the use of their platform they become publishers? That's quite a stretch. That would have the same effect: it would require them to provide unfettered access for anyone, for any purpose.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > That would have the same effect If they don't like the section 230 laws, that already exist, then they should go lobby Congress to change it or something. But right now, if you act as a publisher, then you lose certain protections. That's how that law works.

gamblor956 6y ago

Twitter matters to political discourse, knitting doesn't. Doesn't matter. Twitter is a privately owned platform not a public one. SCOTUS has already said that simply being open to the public does not make a business a public platform, see Pruneyard v Robins, applying this reasoning to privately-owned malls. And yes, that makes all the difference, since SCOTUS has repeatedly held that publicly owned spaces like public parks and main streets are subject to first amendment requirements.

Reelin 6y ago
Except it's not nearly as simple as you make out here. In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) SCOTUS described social media websites as similar to a public square and ruled that the state couldn't block access to them in an overly broad manner. Being open to the public does change how a business is regulated (see the ADA and Civil Rights Act among others) even if it doesn't make it a "public platform" specifically. However, a reasonable case can be made that Twitter has _intentionally_ positioned themselves as a public platform and so the case you cite could be argued not to apply. Alternatively, Twitter could be argued to be editorializing. If that were the case, presumably they wouldn't really be a public platform but rather a publisher. But if that's the case, shouldn't they be held liable for all the nonsense that people post there? The situation isn't clear at all even though many people on both sides of the debate frequently claim that it is.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  That's not at all what Packingham says. That ruling was about a sex offender's right to access a website on which he could engage in first amendment activities without government restriction. It was not about whether a social media website was a public platform or whether the websites had to allow the appellant access. Moreover, many of the activities identified in the ruling also apply to private malls...which the courts have already ruled several times are not public forums for first amendment purposes (Lloyd and Pruneyard). Being open to the public does change how a business is regulated (see the ADA and Civil Rights Act among others) even if it doesn't make it a "public platform" specifically This is true. A statute of Congress can place restrictions on businesses. Last I checked, the President is not a member of Congress, and cannot unilaterally override congressional laws. Moreover, SCOTUS cases have ruled that privately owned facilities are not subject to the "limited purpose" test. It doesn't matter that they've held themselves open to the public, it matters that they're privately owned. (See Lloyd and Pruneyard, explicitly addressing this point.)

thephyber 6y ago

> It is huge. Currently. Might not be long after this change to Section 230 enforcement. > Twitter matters to political discourse, knitting doesn't. I don't follow this logic. There are substitutes for Twitter, even banned users can view publicly posted content on Twitter, and the CDA Section 230 has nothing to do with "political discourse" -- it describes all content. I'm also fascinated that you used the word "political" and not "policy". All things "political" could vanish tomorrow and the world would be better off. Not being able to discuss policy issues/ideas would be tragic.