3 ms·

How many people on twitter were banned for "eat the rich"?

duxup 6y ago
How may were banned? Does that matter?
schoen 6y ago
The parent's point is not that tech companies are unbiased or shouldn't be criticized for their bias, it's that §230 was originally adopted specifically to allow subjective moderation. It's a misconception that the law was predicated on a neutrality or objectivity obligation. Instead, it was meant to reverse court decisions that suggested that such an obligation might exist as a requirement for protection of intermediaries. §230 was meant to allow intermediaries to be protected while exercising editorial control. That doesn't mean that platforms' actual editorial control is "fair"; it just means that the argument that platforms should obviously have to lose §230 protections over their editorial biases misrepresents the history of this legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Background_and_passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
- liaukovv 6y ago
  Shuting out half of a political spectrum doesnt strike me as the original intention. The idea was "to keep internet civil" which makes a lot of sense, but that's obviously not what is happening and not what provoked this reaction.
  - jbermudes 6y ago
    On the contrary, that is exactly why it was created. Dog lovers forums aren't supposed to be compelled to allow cat lovers a platform to voice their opinion on the dog lover's private server. Private servers are not public forums in the legal sense. We can have a conversation on whether or not that needs to change, but basic US law on private property is very clear about this.
    - liaukovv 6y ago
      Law follows morals, so first we need to determine what we actually want. Dog lovers forum is not at issue here because it doesn't matter to how society functions, giant twitters and facebooks on the other hand very much matter and should be re-evaluated.
      - jbermudes 6y ago
        Large websites, large skyscrapers. Still private property.

How may were banned? Does that matter?

The parent's point is not that tech companies are unbiased or shouldn't be criticized for their bias, it's that §230 was originally adopted specifically to allow subjective moderation. It's a misconception that the law was predicated on a neutrality or objectivity obligation. Instead, it was meant to reverse court decisions that suggested that such an obligation might exist as a requirement for protection of intermediaries. §230 was meant to allow intermediaries to be protected while exercising editorial control. That doesn't mean that platforms' actual editorial control is "fair"; it just means that the argument that platforms should obviously have to lose §230 protections over their editorial biases misrepresents the history of this legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Background_and_passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

liaukovv 6y ago
Shuting out half of a political spectrum doesnt strike me as the original intention. The idea was "to keep internet civil" which makes a lot of sense, but that's obviously not what is happening and not what provoked this reaction.
- jbermudes 6y ago
  On the contrary, that is exactly why it was created. Dog lovers forums aren't supposed to be compelled to allow cat lovers a platform to voice their opinion on the dog lover's private server. Private servers are not public forums in the legal sense. We can have a conversation on whether or not that needs to change, but basic US law on private property is very clear about this.
  - liaukovv 6y ago
    Law follows morals, so first we need to determine what we actually want. Dog lovers forum is not at issue here because it doesn't matter to how society functions, giant twitters and facebooks on the other hand very much matter and should be re-evaluated.
    - jbermudes 6y ago
      Large websites, large skyscrapers. Still private property.