3 ms·

From Popehat's post: > Among the most common lies: Section 230 requires sites to choose between being a “platform” or “publisher” The idea that Twitter modera

From Popehat's post: > Among the most common lies: Section 230 requires sites to choose between being a “platform” or “publisher” The idea that Twitter moderating its users' posts means it's acting like a "publisher" is nothing but Republican propaganda[1]: >Furthermore, a number of senators have prominently criticized Section 230. For example, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) repeatedly (but completely falsely) claims that Section 230 only applies to “neutral public forums." Threatening Twitter and Facebook with liability for their users' content is authoritarian suppression of free speech. The US government should not be forcing Twitter or any other social media service to carry the president's re-election propaganda - even if the propaganda is factual, let alone if it's full of holes and lies like the NY Post story. [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3306737 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3306737

luckylion 6y ago
From the comment: > If platforms are going to start acting like publishers, they should no longer get special treatment when compared to other publishers. The GP doesn't argue that Section 230 says this or that, they're arguing that internet companies who act like news sites should be subject to the same laws as news sites.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  The problem is that Twitter and Facebook are not acting like news sites because 1) they don't write the stories or in any way pay the journalists 2) news is a minority of the content 3) moderation is not the same thing as curation 4) hosting a story is not the same thing as publishing it. If I post an NBC News article to Twitter, NBC is the publisher. If that article contains libel, NBC is the one on the hook in court, not Twitter. (However, if Twitter discovered the article was very likely libelous then it would be both reasonable and responsible to restrict sharing the article). GP is really making one of two authoritarian arguments: a) Platforms are not allowed to make broad decisions about what sorts of content they want to host. Presumably GP would then also agree that YouTube's ban on pornography means that YouTube is a "publisher," and that every time Reddit remove a racist subreddit that it is acting like a "publisher." b) If a platform does not want to host the president's dishonest re-election propaganda, they should expect to face financial and legal consequences. Of course nobody would really say "b" out loud, hence the word games about "you see, Mastadon is a platform but Twitter is a publisher."
- typenil 6y ago
  The fact that you're being downvoted just shows the partisan reflexes of those that did it. Making a factual correction without any additional commentary. Down the memory hole.

luckylion 6y ago

From the comment: > If platforms are going to start acting like publishers, they should no longer get special treatment when compared to other publishers. The GP doesn't argue that Section 230 says this or that, they're arguing that internet companies who act like news sites should be subject to the same laws as news sites.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
The problem is that Twitter and Facebook are not acting like news sites because 1) they don't write the stories or in any way pay the journalists 2) news is a minority of the content 3) moderation is not the same thing as curation 4) hosting a story is not the same thing as publishing it. If I post an NBC News article to Twitter, NBC is the publisher. If that article contains libel, NBC is the one on the hook in court, not Twitter. (However, if Twitter discovered the article was very likely libelous then it would be both reasonable and responsible to restrict sharing the article). GP is really making one of two authoritarian arguments: a) Platforms are not allowed to make broad decisions about what sorts of content they want to host. Presumably GP would then also agree that YouTube's ban on pornography means that YouTube is a "publisher," and that every time Reddit remove a racist subreddit that it is acting like a "publisher." b) If a platform does not want to host the president's dishonest re-election propaganda, they should expect to face financial and legal consequences. Of course nobody would really say "b" out loud, hence the word games about "you see, Mastadon is a platform but Twitter is a publisher."
typenil 6y ago
The fact that you're being downvoted just shows the partisan reflexes of those that did it. Making a factual correction without any additional commentary. Down the memory hole.