4 ms·

I don't mean they would have literally stopped the entire story from being a story, but that their own rules would have banned the posting of that news on their

I don't mean they would have literally stopped the entire story from being a story, but that their own rules would have banned the posting of that news on their own platform, even from viable sources.

krapp 6y ago
Sure, but it still wouldn't matter. It's not a good argument that Twitter "censoring" content actually has any relevant effect beyond its platform.
- DeonPenny 6y ago
  Except for the fact that section 230 argues they shouldnt be censoring anything. So they should be liable to be sued for doing things like this like any other publication.
  - iron0013 6y ago
    No it doesn’t.
- Niten 6y ago
  If Twitter's censorship really has no relevant effect beyond its platform, then why has there been such a push to get Twitter and others to deal better with Russian bots following 2016? Are these people mistaken? Does what's allowed to appear on Twitter really have no effect on the broader society?
  - krapp 6y ago
    Did I claim that Twitter had no effect on broader society? No. I claimed that Twitter theoretically banning content related to stories like Watergate, the Panama Papers, etc, would have had no relevant effect on the dissemination of those stories beyond its platform. In other words, that Twitter's policies have no relevant effect on the media landscape at large or the spread of information outside of its domain. Russian bots may or may not be a problem, but that problem is orthogonal to the point I'm trying to make.
    - throwaways885 6y ago
      So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). Do not tell me that's not Big Tech putting their thumb on the scale in a dangerous way. And before you say it, "muh private platform" is not an acceptable argument. This is dangerous to our society.
      - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        >So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). Then the content will probably go on to achieve gigantic commercial success; as is usually the case it appears that something is being banned. See e.g. Spycatcher, this story.
      - krapp 6y ago
        >So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). I mean, do they also control the entirety of mainstream media, all of the news outlets, all book and newspaper publishers, email, television, radio and the entire rest of the internet? Sorry... this is Hacker News, so I have to point out that they actually don't, and that was kind of a rhetorical question. No, believe it or not, people would still know about Watergate or the Panama papers even in that case. >Do not tell me that's not Big Tech putting their thumb on the scale in a dangerous way. You mean the purely speculative case you just made up? Sure, it would be, but then the purely speculative case you just made up doesn't reflect reality, so who cares? And even then, as I mentioned, there is still an entire universe of broadcasting and publishing outside of social media, and the internet itself. So even if all social media sites and Apple and Microsoft and Amazon suddenly decided they weren't competitors and collaborated to ban the same content, that content still isn't memory holed or erased from history. >And before you say it, "muh private platform" is not an acceptable argument. This is dangerous to our society. Yeah... you should take your brilliant intellectual riposte to 4chan where it would be best appreciated. Here we rather appreciate putting a modicum of effort into refuting someone's position. You're going to need something more compelling than that.

krapp 6y ago

Sure, but it still wouldn't matter. It's not a good argument that Twitter "censoring" content actually has any relevant effect beyond its platform.

DeonPenny 6y ago
Except for the fact that section 230 argues they shouldnt be censoring anything. So they should be liable to be sued for doing things like this like any other publication.
- iron0013 6y ago
  No it doesn’t.
Niten 6y ago
If Twitter's censorship really has no relevant effect beyond its platform, then why has there been such a push to get Twitter and others to deal better with Russian bots following 2016? Are these people mistaken? Does what's allowed to appear on Twitter really have no effect on the broader society?
- krapp 6y ago
  Did I claim that Twitter had no effect on broader society? No. I claimed that Twitter theoretically banning content related to stories like Watergate, the Panama Papers, etc, would have had no relevant effect on the dissemination of those stories beyond its platform. In other words, that Twitter's policies have no relevant effect on the media landscape at large or the spread of information outside of its domain. Russian bots may or may not be a problem, but that problem is orthogonal to the point I'm trying to make.
  - throwaways885 6y ago
    So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). Do not tell me that's not Big Tech putting their thumb on the scale in a dangerous way. And before you say it, "muh private platform" is not an acceptable argument. This is dangerous to our society.
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      >So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). Then the content will probably go on to achieve gigantic commercial success; as is usually the case it appears that something is being banned. See e.g. Spycatcher, this story.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content). I mean, do they also control the entirety of mainstream media, all of the news outlets, all book and newspaper publishers, email, television, radio and the entire rest of the internet? Sorry... this is Hacker News, so I have to point out that they actually don't, and that was kind of a rhetorical question. No, believe it or not, people would still know about Watergate or the Panama papers even in that case. >Do not tell me that's not Big Tech putting their thumb on the scale in a dangerous way. You mean the purely speculative case you just made up? Sure, it would be, but then the purely speculative case you just made up doesn't reflect reality, so who cares? And even then, as I mentioned, there is still an entire universe of broadcasting and publishing outside of social media, and the internet itself. So even if all social media sites and Apple and Microsoft and Amazon suddenly decided they weren't competitors and collaborated to ban the same content, that content still isn't memory holed or erased from history. >And before you say it, "muh private platform" is not an acceptable argument. This is dangerous to our society. Yeah... you should take your brilliant intellectual riposte to 4chan where it would be best appreciated. Here we rather appreciate putting a modicum of effort into refuting someone's position. You're going to need something more compelling than that.