3 ms·

> This has zero to do with "kleptocratic business practices". What Twitter did is what a free press does. The press has regulation though. The press can be hel

> This has zero to do with "kleptocratic business practices". What Twitter did is what a free press does. The press has regulation though. The press can be held liable for false claims by those they affect. For example, Nick Sandman was able to sue CNN for the Covington coverage, and settle, because CNN was liable for publishing incorrect information. Whereas, twitter claims to not be a publisher or part of the press, but instead relies on being a platform or utility like a telephone, to avoid this kind of legal liability. If twitter is no longer just providing a platform for its users to provide content but is now providing content itself, then yes, it should be held to the standards of a publisher, much in the same way it is responsible legally for the ads it publishes. Now, I don't believe the president has the ability to decide this liability exists, but I would hope that it already does in our common law system somewhere.

javagram 6y ago
> The press can be held liable for false claims by those they affect. For example, Nick Sandman was able to sue CNN for the Covington coverage, and settle, because CNN was liable for publishing incorrect information. However, if CNN has a comments section on their website, they aren't liable for the posts made by random people in the comments, even if they moderate those comments. They have the same section 230 protections as twitter. > Whereas, twitter claims to not be a publisher or part of the press, but instead relies on being a platform or utility like a telephone, to avoid this kind of legal liability. If the content of the "Fact Check" posted by twitter is illegal (e.g. libel), Trump could sue them in court for libel and win damages, regardless of Section 230. Section 230 protects twitter from liability for its' USERS posts, not for the posts twitter itself makes. @jack can be sued for anything illegal he posts on twitter, twitter the company can be sued for anything they post on @Twitter that is illegal. Any lawsuit against the fact check would be laughed out of court of course as its clearly protected political opinion, and corporations have 1st Amendment rights to express their political opinions (see Citizens United).
- tathougies 6y ago
  > However, if CNN has a comments section on their website, they aren't liable for the posts made by random people in the comments, even if they moderate those comments. They have the same section 230 protections as twitter. Moderation (in the form of removal) is much different from modifying the content of the post, even if to provide 'fact-checking'. I'm fine with twitter removing the president, I don't see why they should have to host him. But they are desperate for anyone to actually use their website, so... > If the content of the "Fact Check" posted by twitter is illegal (e.g. libel), Trump could sue them in court for libel and win damages, regardless of Section 230. I'm not a legal expert, so if this is the case, that's great! From what I read, the executive order supposedly made this legal, but if it already was, then props to the legislature for making it legal, and props to the president for not expanding executive power and just reiterating what congress and the courts have already made law.
rumanator 6y ago
> The press has regulation though. The press can be held liable for false claims by those they affect. Dude, Twitter attached a facts check link, and did it to a shitpost by Trump with a boatload of unsubstantiated entirely made-up claims that arguably are profoundly anti-democratic and against the very core principles of a liberal democratic nation. Attaching a facts check link is suddenly something requiring regulation? Perhaps in fascist dictatorships where the mighty dictator uses the repressive power of the state to shield himself from any oversight. This is the sort of shitshow the world expected from the likes of Khadafi, not the president of the US of A.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
  Attaching a fact check link ONLY to Trump is a bit concerning. There are real dictators around the world who haven't been flagged, I believe Trump is the only political figure to be. It's really strange Twitter chose this one tweet to attack, especially with the elections coming up and why they chose the mail voting tweet is even more.. strange. Twitter can play Ministry of Truth, but they need to take the regulations then. They came for me but I was not a conservative so I did not speak out...
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > Attaching a fact check link ONLY to Trump is a bit concerning. You need to check your facts. Trump is whining about the first fact check link attached to one of his posts, but it's not the only one covered by Twitter's fact check campaign.
- tathougies 6y ago
  > Attaching a facts check link is suddenly something requiring regulation? Perhaps in fascist dictatorships where the mighty dictator uses the repressive power of the state to shield himself from any oversight. No, it would require deregulation if some law of Congress had made twitter not liable for the content. Under common law, without interference by statute, twitter is responsible for anything they publish. And independent of legality, I personally do think it's questionable for sites dependent on user generated content to do 'fact-checking'. It's like... you're a publishing platform. What's next my DNS registrar reading my website and modifying my DNS entries to point to a fact-checking blog? If Trump paid twitter would it be different?
mindslight 6y ago
> If twitter is no longer just providing a platform for its users to provide content but is now providing content itself, then yes, it should be held to the standards of a publisher, much in the same way it is responsible legally for the ads it publishes. Every website provides their own content alongside user generated content. As you point out, Twitter is responsible for the ads they publish, as they're the party publishing them. Likewise, Twitter is responsible for the content of the disclaimer they put on Trump's shitpost, which was quite reserved. This is already the longstanding case. This new line of argument is akin to saying that HN should be directly responsible for all users' comments because dang downvoted a post. It's nothing more than a hamfisted outburst by Trump trying to remove the protection from a company as some sort of summary punishment because the executive doesn't like what the company itself has said. If this were a bill before congress, it would be worrying. As it stands, it's just pathetic. At least this instance of Trump not listening to expert advisors just results in us having to read and debate his tripe, rather than another 100,000 Americans dying.
- tathougies 6y ago
  > This new line of argument is akin to saying that HN should be directly responsible for all users' comments because dang downvoted a post. It's nothing more than a hamfisted outburst by Trump trying to remove the protection from a company as some sort of summary punishment because the executive doesn't like what the company itself has said. How is wanting twitter -- who is now scrutinizing and editing their user's posts -- to now be held up to the standards of a publisher (which is literally someone who publishes information written by others after having reviewed it) a 'new line of argument'? If HN were to actually start to modify user's posts, not because of voting but because of internal processes, then yes, HN should probably be held to the standard of a publisher. You can't just decide that regulations don't apply to you because you have more writers than the standard publisher.

javagram 6y ago

> The press can be held liable for false claims by those they affect. For example, Nick Sandman was able to sue CNN for the Covington coverage, and settle, because CNN was liable for publishing incorrect information. However, if CNN has a comments section on their website, they aren't liable for the posts made by random people in the comments, even if they moderate those comments. They have the same section 230 protections as twitter. > Whereas, twitter claims to not be a publisher or part of the press, but instead relies on being a platform or utility like a telephone, to avoid this kind of legal liability. If the content of the "Fact Check" posted by twitter is illegal (e.g. libel), Trump could sue them in court for libel and win damages, regardless of Section 230. Section 230 protects twitter from liability for its' USERS posts, not for the posts twitter itself makes. @jack can be sued for anything illegal he posts on twitter, twitter the company can be sued for anything they post on @Twitter that is illegal. Any lawsuit against the fact check would be laughed out of court of course as its clearly protected political opinion, and corporations have 1st Amendment rights to express their political opinions (see Citizens United).

tathougies 6y ago
> However, if CNN has a comments section on their website, they aren't liable for the posts made by random people in the comments, even if they moderate those comments. They have the same section 230 protections as twitter. Moderation (in the form of removal) is much different from modifying the content of the post, even if to provide 'fact-checking'. I'm fine with twitter removing the president, I don't see why they should have to host him. But they are desperate for anyone to actually use their website, so... > If the content of the "Fact Check" posted by twitter is illegal (e.g. libel), Trump could sue them in court for libel and win damages, regardless of Section 230. I'm not a legal expert, so if this is the case, that's great! From what I read, the executive order supposedly made this legal, but if it already was, then props to the legislature for making it legal, and props to the president for not expanding executive power and just reiterating what congress and the courts have already made law.

rumanator 6y ago

> The press has regulation though. The press can be held liable for false claims by those they affect. Dude, Twitter attached a facts check link, and did it to a shitpost by Trump with a boatload of unsubstantiated entirely made-up claims that arguably are profoundly anti-democratic and against the very core principles of a liberal democratic nation. Attaching a facts check link is suddenly something requiring regulation? Perhaps in fascist dictatorships where the mighty dictator uses the repressive power of the state to shield himself from any oversight. This is the sort of shitshow the world expected from the likes of Khadafi, not the president of the US of A.

s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
Attaching a fact check link ONLY to Trump is a bit concerning. There are real dictators around the world who haven't been flagged, I believe Trump is the only political figure to be. It's really strange Twitter chose this one tweet to attack, especially with the elections coming up and why they chose the mail voting tweet is even more.. strange. Twitter can play Ministry of Truth, but they need to take the regulations then. They came for me but I was not a conservative so I did not speak out...
- rumanator 6y ago
  > Attaching a fact check link ONLY to Trump is a bit concerning. You need to check your facts. Trump is whining about the first fact check link attached to one of his posts, but it's not the only one covered by Twitter's fact check campaign.
tathougies 6y ago
> Attaching a facts check link is suddenly something requiring regulation? Perhaps in fascist dictatorships where the mighty dictator uses the repressive power of the state to shield himself from any oversight. No, it would require deregulation if some law of Congress had made twitter not liable for the content. Under common law, without interference by statute, twitter is responsible for anything they publish. And independent of legality, I personally do think it's questionable for sites dependent on user generated content to do 'fact-checking'. It's like... you're a publishing platform. What's next my DNS registrar reading my website and modifying my DNS entries to point to a fact-checking blog? If Trump paid twitter would it be different?

mindslight 6y ago

> If twitter is no longer just providing a platform for its users to provide content but is now providing content itself, then yes, it should be held to the standards of a publisher, much in the same way it is responsible legally for the ads it publishes. Every website provides their own content alongside user generated content. As you point out, Twitter is responsible for the ads they publish, as they're the party publishing them. Likewise, Twitter is responsible for the content of the disclaimer they put on Trump's shitpost, which was quite reserved. This is already the longstanding case. This new line of argument is akin to saying that HN should be directly responsible for all users' comments because dang downvoted a post. It's nothing more than a hamfisted outburst by Trump trying to remove the protection from a company as some sort of summary punishment because the executive doesn't like what the company itself has said. If this were a bill before congress, it would be worrying. As it stands, it's just pathetic. At least this instance of Trump not listening to expert advisors just results in us having to read and debate his tripe, rather than another 100,000 Americans dying.

tathougies 6y ago
> This new line of argument is akin to saying that HN should be directly responsible for all users' comments because dang downvoted a post. It's nothing more than a hamfisted outburst by Trump trying to remove the protection from a company as some sort of summary punishment because the executive doesn't like what the company itself has said. How is wanting twitter -- who is now scrutinizing and editing their user's posts -- to now be held up to the standards of a publisher (which is literally someone who publishes information written by others after having reviewed it) a 'new line of argument'? If HN were to actually start to modify user's posts, not because of voting but because of internal processes, then yes, HN should probably be held to the standard of a publisher. You can't just decide that regulations don't apply to you because you have more writers than the standard publisher.