3 ms·

It's not a great comparison because both entities are regulated completely different based on what they allow on their platform/paper with exceptions to certain

It's not a great comparison because both entities are regulated completely different based on what they allow on their platform/paper with exceptions to certain things. That's where people are getting confused. If you curate the news, you can be held liable for things published, if you don't you are allowed a pass (with some exceptions.) By stepping in actively censor a news story that has yet to be disputed, social media platforms have opened themselves up to being held liable for -all- posts.

markdown 6y ago
> By stepping in actively censor a news story that has yet to be disputed That's not why Twitter "censored" the news story. They removed links to a story that violated their published policies.
- 75dvtwin 6y ago
  > They removed links to a story that violated their published policies. I am not sure that it matters 'why they censored'. Put it another way, I do not think it matters if they applied their own ToS rules correctly, incorrectly, selectively or whatever. I am not sure that their terms of service, allow them to claim protection under 47.230 [1] I am sure that the position that the fed government investigators will take. If Twitter folks (or their crowd-sourced moderators, or committees) gray-out/remove/comment on/hide/edit content that Twitter claims 'is not theirs' -- then it is hard to imaging they are compliant with the 'non-publisher' protections of section 47.230. Imagine if one is a for-profit business, claiming tax code for a non-profit organization. Their Terms Of Service mentions: 'Making the world better and being charitable. We do not do business with bad clients'. Does that make that business less criminally liable for claiming taxes of a non-profit? To me it does not. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

markdown 6y ago

> By stepping in actively censor a news story that has yet to be disputed That's not why Twitter "censored" the news story. They removed links to a story that violated their published policies.

75dvtwin 6y ago
> They removed links to a story that violated their published policies. I am not sure that it matters 'why they censored'. Put it another way, I do not think it matters if they applied their own ToS rules correctly, incorrectly, selectively or whatever. I am not sure that their terms of service, allow them to claim protection under 47.230 [1] I am sure that the position that the fed government investigators will take. If Twitter folks (or their crowd-sourced moderators, or committees) gray-out/remove/comment on/hide/edit content that Twitter claims 'is not theirs' -- then it is hard to imaging they are compliant with the 'non-publisher' protections of section 47.230. Imagine if one is a for-profit business, claiming tax code for a non-profit organization. Their Terms Of Service mentions: 'Making the world better and being charitable. We do not do business with bad clients'. Does that make that business less criminally liable for claiming taxes of a non-profit? To me it does not. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230