6 ms·

The following is my uninformed opinion, you can probably skip it; I recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1OhE4w0TAU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1OhE4

by afiori 6y ago

The following is my uninformed opinion, you can probably skip it; I recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1OhE4w0TAU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1OhE4w0TAU for a competent commentary. Anyway: Twitter violating its own ToS and/or promises to the users sounds like an example of bad faith. (This would not apply if Twitter's marketing was 'Fuck you! we do whatever we want', instead they promote themselves as a fair platform) Moreover the entire exemption does not apply when the `provider` is not a provider but is actually a publisher using editorial discretion. (for example if twitter decided to ban false statements in tweets this would clearly put them outside of section 230 immunity)

michaelmrose 6y ago
I would recommend citing legal scholars instead of YouTube personalities. The person you are quoting its a Canadian lawyer of no meaningful repute who gave up his legal career of a paltry decade to become a YouTube influencer. He has never even been licensed to practice law in the United States. His opinion is out of sync with what legal scholars and indeed an what an author of the law says the law means. Just on a laymans reading of the text good faith isn't given in some universal context of fairness or fair play it is given in the sentence. > any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; Good faith herein means actually because they found it objectionable not for some ulterior motive. In order to assert that the removal wasn't protected under 230 you would be asked to prove the contents of the minds of the decision makers that the removal was NOT because they found it objectionable. They could literally argue that they found the effort to influence the election itself objectionable and suppressed it therefore and be safe within the boundaries of the law. In fact good faith .... otherwise objectionable is so broad as to encompass virtually any removal for any reason Furthermore finding that one removal wasn't protected under 230 wouldn't magically dispel all legal protection it would mean for the purpose of THAT removal someone could sue them if they had just legal grounds. I don't believe your source provided one.
- afiori 6y ago
  Personally* I have doubts[1] about this reasoning, in that it doesn't cover how this would not apply to the New York Times. I can agree with your interpretation that where the protection of section 230 applies companies would be allowed to remove basically whatever they want. But there need to be a criterion distinguishing why Twitter can claim this immunity while newspapers cannot. The rights granted need to have some kind of obligation. From what I understand the people that are trying to attack this immunity have mostly given up with the argument "Twitter monopolized a space for discussions so it should be held to constitutional standards like telephone companies" or "social media platforms are clearly acting as publishers of their content" and are rather trying to push "social media companies falsely promised open forums to users and content creators only to hit them with draconian rules once a monopoly was established" (had facebook (or youtube) had the same ToS since its inception it would have never become a monopoly). With this last argument the entire question of section 230 is sidestepped. As far as I understand it will not actually accomplish anything soon; a lawsuit on these premises was successful against Patreon, but those were very special circumstances. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/ * I am even more remote from the US than a Canadian lawyer, but I do not see my role as telling the courts what they should do, but rather as someone that is trying to understand what is happening and trying to develop informed opinions.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    You say you doubt my reasoning but substitute none of your own save for a stale youtube link to the diatribe of a non entity and a link introduced but then neither explained nor contexualized. I honestly don't know entirely what it is trying to express. "Proving Too Much" seems to be a complete non sequitur I have no idea what you fallacy you are suggesting is expressed by the prior or any other post on this subject. >But there need to be a criterion distinguishing why Twitter can claim this immunity while newspapers cannot. The rights granted need to have some kind of obligation. You can institute new obligations as soon as you buy your own congress critter and get them to write new laws. If you believe such obligations are already expressed in law kindly cite the statute and section. The distinction between the print copy published by the New York Times and say reddit/twitter/facebook is literally that this is the distinction the law makes. It doesn't have to make sense to you to be the law of the land. Particularly the short comprehensible section already the primary topic of discussion. If you want to dig into why it seems relatively obvious. The finite first party content is dear and expensive and the act of curation is already inherently an expectation. Asking a publication to take legal responsibility for what they publish is a tolerable and reasonable burden. Reddit/Twitter/Facebook solicit users to produce a veritable ocean of content for which they offer users a chance to communicate to their fellows and a small amount of server time which per unit is paid for by a slightly larger income from ads provided with that content. Legal responsibility for content shared between you and I would be a herculean task, impractical, intractable, and expensive that would leave them with little choice but to cease operations. Indeed few people actually want this what they want is 230 to be used like a club to keep people like twitter from shaping the conversation despite owning the property on which you expect discussion to take place and no law providing such a right to someone else's megaphone. If you don't like it start your own website.

by afiori 6y ago

michaelmrose 6y ago

I would recommend citing legal scholars instead of YouTube personalities. The person you are quoting its a Canadian lawyer of no meaningful repute who gave up his legal career of a paltry decade to become a YouTube influencer. He has never even been licensed to practice law in the United States. His opinion is out of sync with what legal scholars and indeed an what an author of the law says the law means. Just on a laymans reading of the text good faith isn't given in some universal context of fairness or fair play it is given in the sentence. > any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; Good faith herein means actually because they found it objectionable not for some ulterior motive. In order to assert that the removal wasn't protected under 230 you would be asked to prove the contents of the minds of the decision makers that the removal was NOT because they found it objectionable. They could literally argue that they found the effort to influence the election itself objectionable and suppressed it therefore and be safe within the boundaries of the law. In fact good faith .... otherwise objectionable is so broad as to encompass virtually any removal for any reason Furthermore finding that one removal wasn't protected under 230 wouldn't magically dispel all legal protection it would mean for the purpose of THAT removal someone could sue them if they had just legal grounds. I don't believe your source provided one.

afiori 6y ago
Personally* I have doubts[1] about this reasoning, in that it doesn't cover how this would not apply to the New York Times. I can agree with your interpretation that where the protection of section 230 applies companies would be allowed to remove basically whatever they want. But there need to be a criterion distinguishing why Twitter can claim this immunity while newspapers cannot. The rights granted need to have some kind of obligation. From what I understand the people that are trying to attack this immunity have mostly given up with the argument "Twitter monopolized a space for discussions so it should be held to constitutional standards like telephone companies" or "social media platforms are clearly acting as publishers of their content" and are rather trying to push "social media companies falsely promised open forums to users and content creators only to hit them with draconian rules once a monopoly was established" (had facebook (or youtube) had the same ToS since its inception it would have never become a monopoly). With this last argument the entire question of section 230 is sidestepped. As far as I understand it will not actually accomplish anything soon; a lawsuit on these premises was successful against Patreon, but those were very special circumstances. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/ * I am even more remote from the US than a Canadian lawyer, but I do not see my role as telling the courts what they should do, but rather as someone that is trying to understand what is happening and trying to develop informed opinions.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  You say you doubt my reasoning but substitute none of your own save for a stale youtube link to the diatribe of a non entity and a link introduced but then neither explained nor contexualized. I honestly don't know entirely what it is trying to express. "Proving Too Much" seems to be a complete non sequitur I have no idea what you fallacy you are suggesting is expressed by the prior or any other post on this subject. >But there need to be a criterion distinguishing why Twitter can claim this immunity while newspapers cannot. The rights granted need to have some kind of obligation. You can institute new obligations as soon as you buy your own congress critter and get them to write new laws. If you believe such obligations are already expressed in law kindly cite the statute and section. The distinction between the print copy published by the New York Times and say reddit/twitter/facebook is literally that this is the distinction the law makes. It doesn't have to make sense to you to be the law of the land. Particularly the short comprehensible section already the primary topic of discussion. If you want to dig into why it seems relatively obvious. The finite first party content is dear and expensive and the act of curation is already inherently an expectation. Asking a publication to take legal responsibility for what they publish is a tolerable and reasonable burden. Reddit/Twitter/Facebook solicit users to produce a veritable ocean of content for which they offer users a chance to communicate to their fellows and a small amount of server time which per unit is paid for by a slightly larger income from ads provided with that content. Legal responsibility for content shared between you and I would be a herculean task, impractical, intractable, and expensive that would leave them with little choice but to cease operations. Indeed few people actually want this what they want is 230 to be used like a club to keep people like twitter from shaping the conversation despite owning the property on which you expect discussion to take place and no law providing such a right to someone else's megaphone. If you don't like it start your own website.