3 ms·

This is a crucial point. We are not talking about someone coming to my house and blaring Tweets with a bullhorn. If I follow @NYPost then I want to hear what t

by zaroth 6y ago

This is a crucial point. We are not talking about someone coming to my house and blaring Tweets with a bullhorn. If I follow @NYPost then I want to hear what they tweet. Twitter may have every right to censure them, but it’s the wrong thing to do, and people are rightly incensed about it. If I want to retweet a @NYPost article to my followers that is my business. And my followers can gladly listen or unfollow. Twitter’s faux rationale about “hacked materials” sticks coming just days after NYTime’s story on Trump tax returns. If these monopolistic social networks want to interfere in public & private messages on their platform to the benefit of particular political candidates they shouldn’t be doing it with the benefit of Section 230 immunity and/or should be scrutinized for making campaign contributions in-kind, like how National Inquirer got hit with charges for their buy&bury on Trump’s affair.

hooande 6y ago
Twitter has made themselves clear on this. They're going to censor content they don't like, even in direct communications. Use another platform if you don't like it. If you can't do that because all of the content producers and your friends have decided that twitter's level of censorship is ok, then you're just out of step with the rest of society. It's like complaining that Coca Cola is an evil company and you hate them. If everyone else but you still likes Coke then your view on their practices, however valid it may be, won't be relevant
- zaroth 6y ago
  It’s totally fine by me if they want to take on the legal liability of being a publisher. I think it goes against the stated purpose and core mission of their platform. So perhaps they are lying to their users, and even to themselves. > The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free and global conversation. It also may be an illegal campaign contribution in some cases.
  - hooande 6y ago
    wouldn't this leave you in a worse situation? say twitter becomes a publisher (whatever that means) and gets sued out of business. then you still won't be able to follow @NYPost or retweet content to followers. I'm curious, how do you think twitter becoming a publisher would help you to accomplish your stated goals?
    - username90 6y ago
      Twitter can't afford to become a publisher, so if the law didn't let them do what they do now without being a publisher it would force them to stop. Currently they get to eat and keep the cookie.
      - heurist 6y ago
        Twitter and Facebook are in a no-win situation. Remove this content and they are punished by the right removing section 230 protections. Allow it and the left calls them destructive monopolies and breaks them apart. It seems they have chosen to halt the spread of murky 'October surprise' claims on their platforms rather than repeat the course of October 2016. I can't blame them (and agree with their decision).
        RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        > Remove this content and they are punished by the right removing section 230 protections. Allow it and the left calls them destructive monopolies and breaks them apart. This seems to suggest a larger solution -- that these platforms do actually have within their power to implement. Stop helping those two bickering ninnies by taking sides, and instead use the huge bullhorn society has handed them by screaming, "Shut up the both of you, stop bickering and maybe help the people you were elected to help!" Who is right and about what are always less important than simply helping people. There is SO MUCH that is being left undone because we endlessly want to debate single issues for literally DECADES while people die in the streets. Leadership was abandoned long ago and these gigantic bully pulpits could right the ship and instead they are being used as game pieces by their partisan owners. It's... sad to watch.
tzs 6y ago
If you want to hear what the NY Post has to say, you can sign up to their email newsletter [1]. You can forward those emails to those who care what you like. In regards to section 230, the whole point of it was to allow platforms to selectively restrict content from third parties. Before 230 some courts had ruled that if they restricted content from any third party, then they shared in liability for any third party content they did not restrict. So if I deleted spam for boner pills from my chess BBS, but did not delete someone’s accusation that a particular chess book was plagiarized I might be sued by the book author for libel. To ensure I would not be liable for that kind of thing, I would have to let the boner pill spam stay, along with anything else that was not illegal. [1] https://email.nypost.com/ https://email.nypost.com/

by zaroth 6y ago

hooande 6y ago

Twitter has made themselves clear on this. They're going to censor content they don't like, even in direct communications. Use another platform if you don't like it. If you can't do that because all of the content producers and your friends have decided that twitter's level of censorship is ok, then you're just out of step with the rest of society. It's like complaining that Coca Cola is an evil company and you hate them. If everyone else but you still likes Coke then your view on their practices, however valid it may be, won't be relevant

zaroth 6y ago
It’s totally fine by me if they want to take on the legal liability of being a publisher. I think it goes against the stated purpose and core mission of their platform. So perhaps they are lying to their users, and even to themselves. > The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free and global conversation. It also may be an illegal campaign contribution in some cases.
- hooande 6y ago
  wouldn't this leave you in a worse situation? say twitter becomes a publisher (whatever that means) and gets sued out of business. then you still won't be able to follow @NYPost or retweet content to followers. I'm curious, how do you think twitter becoming a publisher would help you to accomplish your stated goals?
  - username90 6y ago
    Twitter can't afford to become a publisher, so if the law didn't let them do what they do now without being a publisher it would force them to stop. Currently they get to eat and keep the cookie.
    - heurist 6y ago
      Twitter and Facebook are in a no-win situation. Remove this content and they are punished by the right removing section 230 protections. Allow it and the left calls them destructive monopolies and breaks them apart. It seems they have chosen to halt the spread of murky 'October surprise' claims on their platforms rather than repeat the course of October 2016. I can't blame them (and agree with their decision).
      - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        > Remove this content and they are punished by the right removing section 230 protections. Allow it and the left calls them destructive monopolies and breaks them apart. This seems to suggest a larger solution -- that these platforms do actually have within their power to implement. Stop helping those two bickering ninnies by taking sides, and instead use the huge bullhorn society has handed them by screaming, "Shut up the both of you, stop bickering and maybe help the people you were elected to help!" Who is right and about what are always less important than simply helping people. There is SO MUCH that is being left undone because we endlessly want to debate single issues for literally DECADES while people die in the streets. Leadership was abandoned long ago and these gigantic bully pulpits could right the ship and instead they are being used as game pieces by their partisan owners. It's... sad to watch.

tzs 6y ago

If you want to hear what the NY Post has to say, you can sign up to their email newsletter [1]. You can forward those emails to those who care what you like. In regards to section 230, the whole point of it was to allow platforms to selectively restrict content from third parties. Before 230 some courts had ruled that if they restricted content from any third party, then they shared in liability for any third party content they did not restrict. So if I deleted spam for boner pills from my chess BBS, but did not delete someone’s accusation that a particular chess book was plagiarized I might be sued by the book author for libel. To ensure I would not be liable for that kind of thing, I would have to let the boner pill spam stay, along with anything else that was not illegal. [1] https://email.nypost.com/ https://email.nypost.com/