3 ms·
I think what he said is if twitter wishes to be a publisher they should be treated as such. What they want to be is NOT a publisher but a platform since differ
by rstupek 6y ago
I think what he said is if twitter wishes to be a publisher they should be treated as such. What they want to be is NOT a publisher but a platform since different rules apply to platforms than are applied to publishers.
- lanstin 6y agoI wouldn’t mind if people could sue Twitter but if your goal is unregulated speech then removing section 230 is counter productive.
- 75dvtwin 6y agoI do not think that that's what will happen. Section 230 will NOT get removed. ISPs and email service providers, and blog platforms, will still be able to use it. But companies that add/remove/replace/gray-out/delete/hide/push-to-bottom content that they claim they did not editorialize -- will be called Publishers. So these businesses will not be able to use statutory protections that are available for non-publishers under section 45.230. An analogy might be: a for-profit-business cannot claim tax benefits available for a non-for-profit organizations. So the tax-code does not get removed, just because somebody was actively abusing it. It stays the same, but the abuser would face criminal investigation. And if the abuser was found to systemically and purposefully avoiding to be recognized as 'Publisher' (or as a for-profit business in this analogy), then the criminal penalties would be more severe, then otherwise.