3 ms·
The talk is about rolling back special privileges that platforms get. Privileges that you and I don't have. If you publish something illegal then you bear the c
by Mirioron 6y ago
The talk is about rolling back special privileges that platforms get. Privileges that you and I don't have. If you publish something illegal then you bear the consequences. If a user on Twitter does it then Twitter doesn't bear the consequences, but the user does instead. Doesn't this mean it's the user that's expressing speech rather than Twitter?
- JoshTriplett 6y ago> Privileges that you and I don't have. You absolutely do. The same protection that applies to Twitter applies to a personal blog that allows comments, or any site that allows users to post.
- FireBeyond 6y ago> If you publish something illegal then you bear the consequences. So let's look at today. You have a tweet from a conservative group that "concludes" that the only way forward for America is violent action, up to and including murder of political opponents. "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat". To me, it seems that there is a plausible argument to be made that this group is inciting violence. And then Trump re-tweeted it, with the additional commentary, "Thanks, Cowboys of America!". If we want to compare "consequences of speech and platforms", then on one hand we have hand-wringing about "Twitter _annotated_ a tweet with links to resources about the substance of that tweet", versus "group hints at violent oppression of political opponents, and is given the thumbs up by political leader". I was going to say "I know which one I find more problematic", but lest someone attempt a slippery slope retort, I'll be more clear: I find only one of these actions at all problematic (and it's not annotation of tweets).