3 ms·

Are you claiming that Twitter is an "Internet Provider"? > Thomas' argument is essentially repeating what all Internet providers have been saying for my lifeti

Are you claiming that Twitter is an "Internet Provider"? > Thomas' argument is essentially repeating what all Internet providers have been saying for my lifetime: "Don't shoot the messenger, we're just the tubes. We don't exercise discretion over the content." The courts looked favorably on that argument for practical reasons. Back then though, providers were typically trying to avoid censoring, due to the fact they were hosting objectionable, possibly illegal content. These same providers are now arguing that the unbearable costs of censorship that they can not possibly withstand for illegal content... well, they in fact can manage to bear for voluntarily censoring legal content. And that particular legal, political content in this case is actually mandated with equal access provisions under election law by all other mediums. I think you're missing some subtlety here. Websites are arguing that they should never be liable for third party content, they should not be required to censor it, and liable if they fail. The argument here being that doing so is very difficult, and they're going to screw up, so this opens them to liability. The argument on the other side is exactly the same: if we choose to remove some stuff, we shouldn't be liable for the things we fail to remove, because ultimately it is impossible for our systems to perfectly address all content. So the argument is exactly the same: whether or not we choose to remove some content, we cannot be held liable for all content, because doing so will make it impossible to operate. > And that particular legal, political content in this case is actually mandated with equal access provisions under election law by all other mediums. Are you suggesting that the NY post article was "legal, political, content"? As it stands, the rules about political advertising are about political advertising by registered political entities, not "content deemed to be political by a judge".

abernard1 6y ago
> So the argument is exactly the same: whether or not we choose to remove some content, we cannot be held liable for all content, because doing so will make it impossible to operate. But no one is forcing them to be "liable" for their own internal regulations they completely made up. This is a case of 1) a public person (so they don't fall under libel), 2) a politically newsworthy story, 3) published in a regulated industry, 4) where they inconsistently discriminated in applying their own policy, and 5) would be legally culpable if they were a traditional broadcast platform under FEC election law. The fact that their internal policy runs against what they'd have to do if they were a broadcast network is the icing on the cake. And then there's the fact that "they can't possibly monitor all of the violations on their platform." So wait, even their own EULA is selectively enforced for users!!!!?

abernard1 6y ago

> So the argument is exactly the same: whether or not we choose to remove some content, we cannot be held liable for all content, because doing so will make it impossible to operate. But no one is forcing them to be "liable" for their own internal regulations they completely made up. This is a case of 1) a public person (so they don't fall under libel), 2) a politically newsworthy story, 3) published in a regulated industry, 4) where they inconsistently discriminated in applying their own policy, and 5) would be legally culpable if they were a traditional broadcast platform under FEC election law. The fact that their internal policy runs against what they'd have to do if they were a broadcast network is the icing on the cake. And then there's the fact that "they can't possibly monitor all of the violations on their platform." So wait, even their own EULA is selectively enforced for users!!!!?