4 ms·

Wouldn't taking away Section 230 thus making Twitter liable for content posted on Twitter have the opposite effect that Trump is going for. Twitter will be lia

Wouldn't taking away Section 230 thus making Twitter liable for content posted on Twitter have the opposite effect that Trump is going for. Twitter will be liable for content posted, therefor won't they start censoring things so they can't be sued? This would make them also liable for Trump's tweets if those tweets aren't removed...

ColanR 6y ago
I don't think that's quite right. From what I can tell, it seems like social media sites like twitter are being given two options, and they're being told that the middle of the road between those options isn't ok anymore. First option, what you described. If they want to make comments about the content of their platform (i.e. fact check something) then they have to 'go all the way' and 'editorialize' everything. (No more Section 230 protection) Second option, which I think still exists (I think?), don't make any comments about the content, and behave strictly as a platform. In that case, all legal protection under Section 230 still applies. Idk if this is a decent analogy, but it seems comparable to the classic anonymous swiss bank account. Either the bank completely protects all personal information for everyone, or it has to move out of switzerland and give up all its anonymity. (I know the analogy isn't accurate, but it seems like a decent mental model.)
- tebruno99 6y ago
  Ah yeah, so it's Twitter's choice if they lose 230 protection or not. Keeping doing this lose it (and they become liable and start censoring everything including Trump), or don't do anything, let humanity drain into a crap hole but keep making $$
  - ColanR 6y ago
    > or don't do anything, let humanity drain into a crap hole but keep making $$ I don't think the stuff on Twitter has often been held up as an example of healthy dialog. Other than that, I agree.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  I think the hypothetical opposite would be interesting: What if Twitter was run by Peter Theil, and they fact checked Joe Biden. I think we'd see absolutely uproar by the democrats. The left believes twitter is on their side, and how that came to be is much more interesting.
  - tebruno99 6y ago
    Maybe they are fact checking Biden and it doesn't seem like it cause they come up empty. LOL
    - blarg1 6y ago
      or mayb they can't figure out what he's saying :)
  - braythwayt 6y ago
    I don’t know who “The Left’ are where you live, but I can tell you that nobody I know with progressive views believes that Twitter is anything but a toxic hell-hole of inconsistent application of half-baked policies. My suggestion to you is that it’s bad enough to “both sides,” an argument. Don’t “both sides” an argument with a hypothetical you just made up. Plenty of Trump supporters have taken Twitter to task for fact-checking Trump but not other politicians. Or for fact-checking Trump now, but not in the past. These are legitimate arguments, because they refer to actual events. Your argument is not worthy of the word “argument.” Please stick to comparing actual things that happened, involving actual people and companies, not hypothetical things that didn’t happen, combined with your interpretation of how people you will not name would or wouldn’t react.
    - Simulacra 6y ago
      You still haven't refuted the argument. You disagree with my conclusions, but you've offered no proof that it's wrong. Twitter must editorialize all, or none. That's the deal in Section 230, and they violated it. In my opinion (that means not based on fact, just me here) the contrapositive with Theil would see a swing of vitriol from left to right. I get that you disagree, but censoring proves the point.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > First option, what you described. If they want to make comments about the content of their platform (i.e. fact check something) then they have to 'go all the way' and 'editorialize' everything. (No more Section 230 protection. The scope of publisher liability makes that impractical for a user-submitted content site. > Second option, which I think still exists (I think?), don't make any comments about the content, and behave strictly as a platform. In that case, all legal protection under Section 230 still applies. Not only don't make comments, but don't control content at all (at least, except (and making errors of interpretation may be dangerous here) removing actually illegal content; this has (among other things) significantly adverse commercial consequences.
  - ColanR 6y ago
    > significantly adverse commercial consequences Honestly, it might be nice to end up with a greater divide between the commercial and non-commercial parts of the internet. I agree, it will be very hard to control all the content on e.g. Twitter; the degree of cleanup required to pull it off might limit the users to a small fraction of the current number. We might end up with commercial sites that are much more tightly controlled. However, what about sites like HN? I think there'd be more of those. Dang does great work, but I think (?) most of the content control is done by users. It might be really nice to regain an internet that isn't dominated by profit-seeking.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > However, what about sites like HN? HN has nowhere near enough active management to safe from liability without Section 230, but enough to be at risk of losing Section 230 protection especially for a government effort overtly motivated by perceived anti-Republican bias (which HN is regularly accused of exhibiting and reinforcing via it's moderation policies.) I'm pretty sure YC wouldn't risk running it if Section 230 protection with active moderation wasn't available; user-submitted content sites that are side project for a business are even more at risk than ones that are core business; no one is going to absorb substantial liabit risk for a peripheral effort.
Simulacra 6y ago
YES! For some reason everyone that is howling at Trump seem to have missed that it would censor Trump as well!

ColanR 6y ago

I don't think that's quite right. From what I can tell, it seems like social media sites like twitter are being given two options, and they're being told that the middle of the road between those options isn't ok anymore. First option, what you described. If they want to make comments about the content of their platform (i.e. fact check something) then they have to 'go all the way' and 'editorialize' everything. (No more Section 230 protection) Second option, which I think still exists (I think?), don't make any comments about the content, and behave strictly as a platform. In that case, all legal protection under Section 230 still applies. Idk if this is a decent analogy, but it seems comparable to the classic anonymous swiss bank account. Either the bank completely protects all personal information for everyone, or it has to move out of switzerland and give up all its anonymity. (I know the analogy isn't accurate, but it seems like a decent mental model.)

tebruno99 6y ago
Ah yeah, so it's Twitter's choice if they lose 230 protection or not. Keeping doing this lose it (and they become liable and start censoring everything including Trump), or don't do anything, let humanity drain into a crap hole but keep making $$
- ColanR 6y ago
  > or don't do anything, let humanity drain into a crap hole but keep making $$ I don't think the stuff on Twitter has often been held up as an example of healthy dialog. Other than that, I agree.
Simulacra 6y ago
I think the hypothetical opposite would be interesting: What if Twitter was run by Peter Theil, and they fact checked Joe Biden. I think we'd see absolutely uproar by the democrats. The left believes twitter is on their side, and how that came to be is much more interesting.
- tebruno99 6y ago
  Maybe they are fact checking Biden and it doesn't seem like it cause they come up empty. LOL
  - blarg1 6y ago
    or mayb they can't figure out what he's saying :)
- braythwayt 6y ago
  I don’t know who “The Left’ are where you live, but I can tell you that nobody I know with progressive views believes that Twitter is anything but a toxic hell-hole of inconsistent application of half-baked policies. My suggestion to you is that it’s bad enough to “both sides,” an argument. Don’t “both sides” an argument with a hypothetical you just made up. Plenty of Trump supporters have taken Twitter to task for fact-checking Trump but not other politicians. Or for fact-checking Trump now, but not in the past. These are legitimate arguments, because they refer to actual events. Your argument is not worthy of the word “argument.” Please stick to comparing actual things that happened, involving actual people and companies, not hypothetical things that didn’t happen, combined with your interpretation of how people you will not name would or wouldn’t react.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    You still haven't refuted the argument. You disagree with my conclusions, but you've offered no proof that it's wrong. Twitter must editorialize all, or none. That's the deal in Section 230, and they violated it. In my opinion (that means not based on fact, just me here) the contrapositive with Theil would see a swing of vitriol from left to right. I get that you disagree, but censoring proves the point.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> First option, what you described. If they want to make comments about the content of their platform (i.e. fact check something) then they have to 'go all the way' and 'editorialize' everything. (No more Section 230 protection. The scope of publisher liability makes that impractical for a user-submitted content site. > Second option, which I think still exists (I think?), don't make any comments about the content, and behave strictly as a platform. In that case, all legal protection under Section 230 still applies. Not only don't make comments, but don't control content at all (at least, except (and making errors of interpretation may be dangerous here) removing actually illegal content; this has (among other things) significantly adverse commercial consequences.
- ColanR 6y ago
  > significantly adverse commercial consequences Honestly, it might be nice to end up with a greater divide between the commercial and non-commercial parts of the internet. I agree, it will be very hard to control all the content on e.g. Twitter; the degree of cleanup required to pull it off might limit the users to a small fraction of the current number. We might end up with commercial sites that are much more tightly controlled. However, what about sites like HN? I think there'd be more of those. Dang does great work, but I think (?) most of the content control is done by users. It might be really nice to regain an internet that isn't dominated by profit-seeking.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > However, what about sites like HN? HN has nowhere near enough active management to safe from liability without Section 230, but enough to be at risk of losing Section 230 protection especially for a government effort overtly motivated by perceived anti-Republican bias (which HN is regularly accused of exhibiting and reinforcing via it's moderation policies.) I'm pretty sure YC wouldn't risk running it if Section 230 protection with active moderation wasn't available; user-submitted content sites that are side project for a business are even more at risk than ones that are core business; no one is going to absorb substantial liabit risk for a peripheral effort.

Simulacra 6y ago

YES! For some reason everyone that is howling at Trump seem to have missed that it would censor Trump as well!