4 ms·

What? Not only does the legal concept of a "neutral platform" not exist, the examples you cite (Fox, CNN) are certainly not "neutral platforms." They aren't res

What? Not only does the legal concept of a "neutral platform" not exist, the examples you cite (Fox, CNN) are certainly not "neutral platforms." They aren't responsible for what their commenters post on their sites either (and it is certainly... eye-opening to check out their comment sections sometimes). Twitter already does have libel liabilities, just like Fox and CNN, if they were to themselves post something libelous - just like if Fox were to produce a segment themselves that is libelous.

chrisco255 6y ago
No they don't. Twitter cannot be sued for something someone tweets that is false or defamatory about someone else. That individual tweeter is responsible. Unlike Fox or CNN who are responsible for what their reporters and commentators say. If Twitter ventures against the spirit of 230 protection, which was designed to protect neutral platforms like a utility, then they deserve to lose it. It's not about who produces a segment, Twitter is clearly the publisher and distributor. 230 was designed to protect free speech not to allow unlimited corporate intervention into speech.
- vkou 6y ago
  Fox has been photoshopping a man with an assault rifle onto pictures of a peaceful protest for the last week. What legal consequences have they faced, or are they going to face for these blatant lies?
- mcintyre1994 6y ago
  Here's section 230, it's very short: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Please can you explain how this was "designed to protect neutral platforms like a utility", given that the text contains none of the words "neutral", "platform" or "utility"? It also doesn't contain "editorialise" or any variant that I can see.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Here's the whole bill it was attached to, it's very long: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_19... Note the original TCA created the FCC. That entire bill was packed with legislation to regulate cable and phone companies as well as providers of internet services...ergo utility. Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against Internet service providers in the early 1990s that had different interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers or distributors of content created by its users. Note, it is my strong opinion that Twitter selectively fact checking and blocking tweets or shadowbanning particular users that do not violate any laws or TOS means they are venturing into the publisher role more and more. Section 230 was clearly designed to preserve free speech not to encourage its destruction by homogeneous corporations.
- akersten 6y ago
  If Twitter themselves posted a tweet defaming someone, they'd have the exact same liabilities as those reporters at CNN, who are employed by CNN to create content for CNN. Twitter can't be sued for a libelous tweet that someone else posts. Just like Fox can't be sued for a libelous comment that someone else leaves on a story. Well, you can sue anyone for anything, the point is neither of these suits would be successful. I mean, this is just a common sense way of things working. In fact, the liability following-through to whoever actually did the bad thing was the entire motivation behind why S230 was created. > 230 protection, which was designed to protect neutral platforms like a utility, The text of section 230 has none of the words "neutral platform" nor "utility," nor are they legal concepts that exist in this context.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  In addition to the they other comments, we know from history that section 230 was written to encourage sites to moderate content. The historical revisionism around platform neutrality and section 230 is all made up.

chrisco255 6y ago

No they don't. Twitter cannot be sued for something someone tweets that is false or defamatory about someone else. That individual tweeter is responsible. Unlike Fox or CNN who are responsible for what their reporters and commentators say. If Twitter ventures against the spirit of 230 protection, which was designed to protect neutral platforms like a utility, then they deserve to lose it. It's not about who produces a segment, Twitter is clearly the publisher and distributor. 230 was designed to protect free speech not to allow unlimited corporate intervention into speech.

vkou 6y ago
Fox has been photoshopping a man with an assault rifle onto pictures of a peaceful protest for the last week. What legal consequences have they faced, or are they going to face for these blatant lies?
mcintyre1994 6y ago
Here's section 230, it's very short: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Please can you explain how this was "designed to protect neutral platforms like a utility", given that the text contains none of the words "neutral", "platform" or "utility"? It also doesn't contain "editorialise" or any variant that I can see.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Here's the whole bill it was attached to, it's very long: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_19... Note the original TCA created the FCC. That entire bill was packed with legislation to regulate cable and phone companies as well as providers of internet services...ergo utility. Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against Internet service providers in the early 1990s that had different interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers or distributors of content created by its users. Note, it is my strong opinion that Twitter selectively fact checking and blocking tweets or shadowbanning particular users that do not violate any laws or TOS means they are venturing into the publisher role more and more. Section 230 was clearly designed to preserve free speech not to encourage its destruction by homogeneous corporations.
akersten 6y ago
If Twitter themselves posted a tweet defaming someone, they'd have the exact same liabilities as those reporters at CNN, who are employed by CNN to create content for CNN. Twitter can't be sued for a libelous tweet that someone else posts. Just like Fox can't be sued for a libelous comment that someone else leaves on a story. Well, you can sue anyone for anything, the point is neither of these suits would be successful. I mean, this is just a common sense way of things working. In fact, the liability following-through to whoever actually did the bad thing was the entire motivation behind why S230 was created. > 230 protection, which was designed to protect neutral platforms like a utility, The text of section 230 has none of the words "neutral platform" nor "utility," nor are they legal concepts that exist in this context.
joshuamorton 6y ago
In addition to the they other comments, we know from history that section 230 was written to encourage sites to moderate content. The historical revisionism around platform neutrality and section 230 is all made up.