3 ms·

I actually do think it matters. I also think there should be a distinction between things leaked by a whistleblower and things leaked by a thief or a patsy. H

I actually do think it matters. I also think there should be a distinction between things leaked by a whistleblower and things leaked by a thief or a patsy. However, since whistleblowers are often putting themselves at significant risk, we end up relying on the integrity of the journalists / publications in terms of taking their word for the legitimacy of the source. So yeah. A publication that makes a significant effort to vet their source and the story deserves the benefit of the doubt while a publication that acts as a click-bait tabloid without any kind of investigative effort doesn't. That said, I think Twitter is grasping a bit and trying to use a policy that's right or wrong when the reality is more subjective. The other thing I don't understand is how revisiting section 230 of the DMCA and turning Twitter into a publisher is going to improve things. If the current publishers don't suffer any repercussions for anything, how will it be different if Twitter is considered the publisher? They're looking for a whipping boy IMO.

luckylion 6y ago
I very much do agree with you with regards to giving more trust to companies (or individual journalists) with a good track record. My issue is mostly that Twitter isn't using that as a policy (at least not as a stated policy) but a more vague thing like "can't contain information gained by unauthorized access" and then applies that selectively. I kind of understand why they don't, because that would likely be hard to quantify and you'd have to decide what basket a company goes into, which would act as a gate keeper (if you don't have a good track record, or none at all, you can't publish visibly) and they'd likely have to constantly monitor for changes. Not something that scales well or can be automated, and definitely something where they'd get roasted each time the NYT commits a faux pas. > If the current publishers don't suffer any repercussions for anything, how will it be different if Twitter is considered the publisher? True. In a post-fact world, consequences for publishers reporting falsehoods might need to come back on the table. On the one hand that's a problem because it stifles reporting, on the other hand they have been playing very loose and saying "oops, sorry, we'll do better next time, promise" every time doesn't work.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  Well said. > In a post-fact world, consequences for publishers reporting falsehoods might need to come back on the table. On the one hand that's a problem because it stifles reporting, on the other hand they have been playing very loose and saying "oops, sorry, we'll do better next time, promise" every time doesn't work. That one flip-flops in my head all the time. Maybe the idea of reduced liability or a higher bar for proving libel / slander in a civil suit against a publisher might be an option, but with _some_ exposure to liability. There has to be a threshold where high quality publishers could bear the costs of honest mistakes, but bad actors would be overwhelmed financially.

luckylion 6y ago

I very much do agree with you with regards to giving more trust to companies (or individual journalists) with a good track record. My issue is mostly that Twitter isn't using that as a policy (at least not as a stated policy) but a more vague thing like "can't contain information gained by unauthorized access" and then applies that selectively. I kind of understand why they don't, because that would likely be hard to quantify and you'd have to decide what basket a company goes into, which would act as a gate keeper (if you don't have a good track record, or none at all, you can't publish visibly) and they'd likely have to constantly monitor for changes. Not something that scales well or can be automated, and definitely something where they'd get roasted each time the NYT commits a faux pas. > If the current publishers don't suffer any repercussions for anything, how will it be different if Twitter is considered the publisher? True. In a post-fact world, consequences for publishers reporting falsehoods might need to come back on the table. On the one hand that's a problem because it stifles reporting, on the other hand they have been playing very loose and saying "oops, sorry, we'll do better next time, promise" every time doesn't work.

donmcronald 6y ago
Well said. > In a post-fact world, consequences for publishers reporting falsehoods might need to come back on the table. On the one hand that's a problem because it stifles reporting, on the other hand they have been playing very loose and saying "oops, sorry, we'll do better next time, promise" every time doesn't work. That one flip-flops in my head all the time. Maybe the idea of reduced liability or a higher bar for proving libel / slander in a civil suit against a publisher might be an option, but with _some_ exposure to liability. There has to be a threshold where high quality publishers could bear the costs of honest mistakes, but bad actors would be overwhelmed financially.