4 ms·

This was inevitable given the way that Twitter and other large platforms have behaved. They want to hide behind the idea of platform neutrality so that they can

by jaspax 6y ago

This was inevitable given the way that Twitter and other large platforms have behaved. They want to hide behind the idea of platform neutrality so that they can't be held responsible for everything posted on their site, since it's impossible for them to check every post. At the same time, they want to be able to step in when something offensive to the tastes becomes too prominent. This EO puts an end to that. Either you exercise editorial control or you don't; no more "editorial responsibility only when we feel like it".

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
whitebread 6y ago
Isn’t the problem that the tweets are factually incorrect? I don’t think it has anything to do with offensiveness in this case.
- sneak 6y ago
  I’m not sure about that. I don’t like the toxic nonsense the president posts, but I can also not like the toxic nonsense e.g. esr posts on his website, while simultaneously thinking his web host would be wrong for editing his pages full of toxic nonsense against his will. I think this EO will be a net benefit for free expression online. I was expecting it to be a terrible tyrannical anti-free-press power grab, but, having read it, it does not appear to be that.
RealityVoid 6y ago
This does not necessarily put an end to it, if it does end up putting an end to it, it does not extent only to the US and effectively legislating world wide internet and, if it is shown it has teeth, in the end it might have the end effect of killing _all_ online moderation. Surely, if you moderate, _some_ moderation is better than _no_ moderation. And even if you moderate something, it will be absolutely impossible to moderate everything. Basically, it dooms you platform. You'll err on the side of caution and become YouTube+DMCA takedowns now.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bigdubs 6y ago
It doesn't do anything. It directs agencies he doesn't control to do things they can't do. All it does is distract and and seem intimidating to Twitter and Facebook. He's just a bully.

by jaspax 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

whitebread 6y ago

Isn’t the problem that the tweets are factually incorrect? I don’t think it has anything to do with offensiveness in this case.

sneak 6y ago
I’m not sure about that. I don’t like the toxic nonsense the president posts, but I can also not like the toxic nonsense e.g. esr posts on his website, while simultaneously thinking his web host would be wrong for editing his pages full of toxic nonsense against his will. I think this EO will be a net benefit for free expression online. I was expecting it to be a terrible tyrannical anti-free-press power grab, but, having read it, it does not appear to be that.

RealityVoid 6y ago

This does not necessarily put an end to it, if it does end up putting an end to it, it does not extent only to the US and effectively legislating world wide internet and, if it is shown it has teeth, in the end it might have the end effect of killing _all_ online moderation. Surely, if you moderate, _some_ moderation is better than _no_ moderation. And even if you moderate something, it will be absolutely impossible to moderate everything. Basically, it dooms you platform. You'll err on the side of caution and become YouTube+DMCA takedowns now.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bigdubs 6y ago

It doesn't do anything. It directs agencies he doesn't control to do things they can't do. All it does is distract and and seem intimidating to Twitter and Facebook. He's just a bully.