4 ms·
First, it's not just this move, but it certainly contributes. I think it's fine to label state-influenced accounts, but why not do it across the board and label
by ibejoeb 6y ago
First, it's not just this move, but it certainly contributes. I think it's fine to label state-influenced accounts, but why not do it across the board and label all state-influenced accounts? BBC is state media. NPR is state media and is constantly accused of bias, as is the CPB.
Twitter also does not specify how they make the determination other than to say that it consulted some unnamed members of their Trust & Safety Council. That thing is a mess in itself, and counts the ridiculous Dangerous Speech Project among its members.
All of this is to say Twitter is not only opining on the content, but clearly exercising control over what is published.
- tptacek 6y agoYou're not answering my question. What exactly does this have to do with 230? Twitter can label you the Easter Bunny and still rely on 230. People seem to believe that activate moderation contravenes 230, but that is obviously not true. Is there some other 230 concern I'm missing?