4 ms·

> My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers. Ok but clearly tha

> My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers. Ok but clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content. In effect, it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down. Would you say that fairly describes your position or am I misinterpreting you?

brigandish 6y ago
> clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. > it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down That is technically known as a false dilemma. - They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action, no action for things off of the "platform", no new rules that just happen to affect their political opponents - They can refrain from reframing content - They can decide to become a smaller company (maybe more profitable (at last;), focus can help, niches help, size isn't everything) - They can hire more moderators - They can make the algorithmic tools they use available to users, if you don't want to read "deplorable" content then why not give you they power to make the choice and others the power to continue to read it? - They can make the rules clearer, tighter, more accessible. My Lord, there are so many choices available and they're not all mutually exclusive, and this isn't even an exhaustive list.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. Right... Because they have section 230 protection. Forums and newspaper websites are not "counted as publishers" with respect to comments you make on the site exactly the same way twitter isn't "counted as a publisher" for your tweets. > They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action... Why is it a false dilemma? You've offered up an arbitrary list of product and business suggestions based on your own opinions about how twitter should be run, but nothing you've said seems to contradict the conclusion that twitter should lose the legal protection that allows them to keep the site open if they moderate the site. Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet?
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > Right... Because they have section 230 protection. That's a good point. You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that. > Why is it a false dilemma? You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more. We must preserve the status quo or we die! is not a compelling argument to anyone with an ounce of imagination. > arbitrary list No, they're not "arbitrary", and I'm beginning to lose my patience with you. > based on your own opinions This is my account, I write my own opinions using it. > that allows them to keep the site open Begging the question. The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary. > Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet? I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down, regardless of whether they retained protection, and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that. If twitter becomes legally responsible for anything posted by the millions of users that publish content to the site then it's obviously impossible for them to keep the site running, the logic is very clear. > You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more No, there are only two, either the site has section 230 protection or it doesn't, there is no in-between state. > We must preserve the status quo or we die! An impressive strawman for someone with such an obsession for formal fallacy labels. > The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary. Your list of business suggestions are just ideas you made up, they have no legal meaning, hence arbitrary. Business decisions like "shadowbanning", "retroactive action", "reframing content" and even explicit partisan bias are 100% legal and Twitter is within their rights to operate their business in such a fashion. > I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down Yet in your own words: > The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" So in other words, the site shouldn't be kept open if they don't follow your legally meaningless suggestions. > and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line. lol whatever, if you're so intellectually dishonest that you won't admit to the implied conclusions of your own argument then I'm wasting my time anyway.

brigandish 6y ago

> clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. > it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down That is technically known as a false dilemma. - They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action, no action for things off of the "platform", no new rules that just happen to affect their political opponents - They can refrain from reframing content - They can decide to become a smaller company (maybe more profitable (at last;), focus can help, niches help, size isn't everything) - They can hire more moderators - They can make the algorithmic tools they use available to users, if you don't want to read "deplorable" content then why not give you they power to make the choice and others the power to continue to read it? - They can make the rules clearer, tighter, more accessible. My Lord, there are so many choices available and they're not all mutually exclusive, and this isn't even an exhaustive list.

root_axis 6y ago
> I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. Right... Because they have section 230 protection. Forums and newspaper websites are not "counted as publishers" with respect to comments you make on the site exactly the same way twitter isn't "counted as a publisher" for your tweets. > They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action... Why is it a false dilemma? You've offered up an arbitrary list of product and business suggestions based on your own opinions about how twitter should be run, but nothing you've said seems to contradict the conclusion that twitter should lose the legal protection that allows them to keep the site open if they moderate the site. Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet?
- brigandish 6y ago
  > Right... Because they have section 230 protection. That's a good point. You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that. > Why is it a false dilemma? You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more. We must preserve the status quo or we die! is not a compelling argument to anyone with an ounce of imagination. > arbitrary list No, they're not "arbitrary", and I'm beginning to lose my patience with you. > based on your own opinions This is my account, I write my own opinions using it. > that allows them to keep the site open Begging the question. The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary. > Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet? I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down, regardless of whether they retained protection, and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that. If twitter becomes legally responsible for anything posted by the millions of users that publish content to the site then it's obviously impossible for them to keep the site running, the logic is very clear. > You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more No, there are only two, either the site has section 230 protection or it doesn't, there is no in-between state. > We must preserve the status quo or we die! An impressive strawman for someone with such an obsession for formal fallacy labels. > The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary. Your list of business suggestions are just ideas you made up, they have no legal meaning, hence arbitrary. Business decisions like "shadowbanning", "retroactive action", "reframing content" and even explicit partisan bias are 100% legal and Twitter is within their rights to operate their business in such a fashion. > I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down Yet in your own words: > The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" So in other words, the site shouldn't be kept open if they don't follow your legally meaningless suggestions. > and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line. lol whatever, if you're so intellectually dishonest that you won't admit to the implied conclusions of your own argument then I'm wasting my time anyway.