4 ms·
Exactly. I guess banning content on a private platform by its private owner is totally okay, at least legally. Banning content with double standards, though, ma
by hintymad 6y ago
Exactly. I guess banning content on a private platform by its private owner is totally okay, at least legally. Banning content with double standards, though, makes the platform editorial, which means people should be able to sue the company left and right.
And hacked in what way? Didn't the repair shop owner take ownership of the computer after repeatedly asking for payment but not getting it? Didn't the owner give the hard drive first to FBI, then to a few media, and then to Giuliani?
As for fact checkers, Twitter didn't really fact check those media who give a report that says "anonymous source says", right? Twitter didn't really fact check that Jack Tapper contradicted himself now and in 2016 on exactly the same fine people hoax, right? Twitter didn't really fact check The Project 1619 that teaches us to hate America with a long list of inaccuracies (if not outright lies) or the critical race theory that claims that all white people are born racists or Asian people are complicit racists because they bought the values like working hard or being good at STEM, right? Or why isn't leaked tax records not "hacked"(FWIW, I'm only arguing the definition of "hacked", not whether it's good or bad to reveal tax record).
Oh wait, I guess I'm not exactly following the righteous narratives here, as all the morally superior mainstream media are doing. So this makes me a what? A bigot? A Nazi? A brown but really white supremacist? A racist?
- biztos 6y agoThe rest of your polemic aside, specifically what do you think makes Twitter more susceptible to lawsuits here?
- whimsicalism 6y agoI'm assuming it's a reference to the fact that engaging in editorial conduct voids a platform's section 230 safe harbor.
- magicalist 6y ago> Banning content with double standards, though, makes the platform editorial, which means people should be able to sue the company left and right. Unless Section 230 gets repealed, it's the exact opposite, actually.
- hintymad 6y agoYeah, Section 230 protects them, and I think Twitter shouldn't be protected by 230 for their actions.
- magicalist 6y ago> and I think Twitter shouldn't be protected by 230 for their actions I don't see how. Their actions are explicitly what are protected: > Civil liability - No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of > (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- zaroth 6y agoWhat do the words “in good faith” mean in that context?
- magicalist 6y ago> What do the words “in good faith” mean in that context? Essentially nothing, which is why a few of the proposed bills to punish tech companies for removing content have tried to turn that into a clause with teeth.
- tick_tock_tick 6y agoBasically if you took twitters actions and did the exact opposite it would be "in good faith". They just don't give a fuck since they assume they won't suffer consequences.
- username90 6y agoHiding negative articles about Biden that wouldn't have been hidden if they were about Trump goes under which of those kinds? Section 230 lets you filter out unrelated disturbing content like porn, it doesn't let you inject political bias.