4 ms·

People love bringing up the UDHR. Normally I would be happy. But they are misusing it. There are articles besides the 19th. Tweeting content disagreeable with

People love bringing up the UDHR. Normally I would be happy. But they are misusing it. There are articles besides the 19th. Tweeting content disagreeable with Twitter, Inc. cannot be a right under the UDHR because of Article 20. Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. "An association" doesn't mean an organized body like a club, political party, or union. It means any tangible or intangible connection of any type between two parties. The twin freedoms of speech and association means a newspaper can't be forced (in civilized countries) to publish content against their will. The owners of the paper can't be forced into an association with ideas or speech that is not their own. Same goes for Twitter. If Twitter wants to delete or prevent the dissemination of any tweet for any reason at any time-- that's their right. If this was not true, then my local newspaper would be violating my rights for not publishing my letters to the editor. Are they?

Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago
Yes, but Facebook or Twitter are not publishers, they are platforms. You can sue your local newspaper if it publishes defamatory information, but you can't sue Facebook and other online services on these grounds because they enjoy Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; see [1] for a good explanation. [1] https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...
- kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
  Publisher vs. Platform is irrelevant. You can sue anyone for any reason. Facebook and other online services enjoy broad immunity from civil suits IF AND ONLY IF they make a good faith effort to remove defamatory content. I understand why conservative bigots are obsessed with Section 230: its repeal is being used as a threat against platforms that remove bigoted content. Conservative bigots know that Section 230 means nothing to the fact that Facebook can delete their bigoted comments, but they ALSO know that repealing it will cost Facebook money so they are pressuring Facebook, saying "If you allow our bigoted content we will drop efforts to repeal section 230". I will never understand why people believe conservative bigots who say that it has anything to do with free speech. Section 230 is literally two sentences, easily understandable by average persons. It has nothing to do with speech.
  - Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago
    You seem to really like the word "bigot". Section 230 [1] is much more than "literally two sentences" and related to the current subject it clearly states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Hence the argument that Twitter removes user content because this is what publishers do doesn't apply: Twitter is not a publisher of this content. It does have some moderation rights, but the list of moderation reasons is limited and cannot be extended at will by Twitter policy; see III.A in [2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14913431594039007214 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=149134315940390...

Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago

Yes, but Facebook or Twitter are not publishers, they are platforms. You can sue your local newspaper if it publishes defamatory information, but you can't sue Facebook and other online services on these grounds because they enjoy Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; see [1] for a good explanation. [1] https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...

kilo_bravo_3 6y ago
Publisher vs. Platform is irrelevant. You can sue anyone for any reason. Facebook and other online services enjoy broad immunity from civil suits IF AND ONLY IF they make a good faith effort to remove defamatory content. I understand why conservative bigots are obsessed with Section 230: its repeal is being used as a threat against platforms that remove bigoted content. Conservative bigots know that Section 230 means nothing to the fact that Facebook can delete their bigoted comments, but they ALSO know that repealing it will cost Facebook money so they are pressuring Facebook, saying "If you allow our bigoted content we will drop efforts to repeal section 230". I will never understand why people believe conservative bigots who say that it has anything to do with free speech. Section 230 is literally two sentences, easily understandable by average persons. It has nothing to do with speech.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 6y ago
  You seem to really like the word "bigot". Section 230 [1] is much more than "literally two sentences" and related to the current subject it clearly states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Hence the argument that Twitter removes user content because this is what publishers do doesn't apply: Twitter is not a publisher of this content. It does have some moderation rights, but the list of moderation reasons is limited and cannot be extended at will by Twitter policy; see III.A in [2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14913431594039007214 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=149134315940390...