4 ms·

> It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it. I agree with that. > A newspaper with a better reputat

> It's not about the quality of the Post's journalism. It's about whether Twitter should restrict it. I agree with that. > A newspaper with a better reputation for reporting the news than Twitter. Twitter is a social media site that anyone can post on, it's not a news aggregation site and certainly isn't even a news generating company. Every news organization in the world could delete their Twitter account, and everyone could stop sharing links to news companies articles, and Twitter's purpose wouldn't change. Twitter doesn't hire journalists to research and write articles...

madmulita 6y ago
> Twitter is a social media site that anyone can post on... Anyone agreeing with Twitter's agenda, it appears.
- kyuudou 6y ago
  Why is this being downvoted? Because of someone else's tip, I tried tweeting these 7 characters: gtv.org and had my account locked within 3 seconds. What kind of orwellian shit is that?!? The twitter account itself was used very sparingly to upload content from my PS4, not controversial in the least. There is very clearly an agenda being applied here. Which is fine with me because this kind of repression is indication of desperation.
  - kyuudou 6y ago
    to whoever downvoted me, it's this simple. You are either: A platform. That allows all voices to be heard. 1st Amendment protections. A publisher. That can edit or censor. And can be sued for slander and libel. Whatever sophistry section 230 discussion is being fogged with, the above should be the way it is, period.
75dvtwin 6y ago
Twitter restrict free speech using their selective outrage. It is morally reprehensible, but allowed. They are free to have their selective outrage, but they are a publisher, not a platform. And therefore cannot claim protections under 47.230 This is like claiming tax exceptions of a non-profit charity, while being a for profit business >" ... (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)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; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] ..." [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- wan23 6y ago
  This is a strange reading of section 230. It seems like you're saying that Twitter is not a "provider...of an interactive computer service" because it is choosing what is on its platform, even though in section 2A it specifically provides protections for such providers to "restrict access to or availability of material that the provider...considers to be obscene...or otherwise objectionable". If it is not allowed for a platform to remove content they find objectionable, then why call it out as protected here?

madmulita 6y ago

> Twitter is a social media site that anyone can post on... Anyone agreeing with Twitter's agenda, it appears.

kyuudou 6y ago
Why is this being downvoted? Because of someone else's tip, I tried tweeting these 7 characters: gtv.org and had my account locked within 3 seconds. What kind of orwellian shit is that?!? The twitter account itself was used very sparingly to upload content from my PS4, not controversial in the least. There is very clearly an agenda being applied here. Which is fine with me because this kind of repression is indication of desperation.
- kyuudou 6y ago
  to whoever downvoted me, it's this simple. You are either: A platform. That allows all voices to be heard. 1st Amendment protections. A publisher. That can edit or censor. And can be sued for slander and libel. Whatever sophistry section 230 discussion is being fogged with, the above should be the way it is, period.

75dvtwin 6y ago

Twitter restrict free speech using their selective outrage. It is morally reprehensible, but allowed. They are free to have their selective outrage, but they are a publisher, not a platform. And therefore cannot claim protections under 47.230 This is like claiming tax exceptions of a non-profit charity, while being a for profit business >" ... (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)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; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] ..." [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

wan23 6y ago
This is a strange reading of section 230. It seems like you're saying that Twitter is not a "provider...of an interactive computer service" because it is choosing what is on its platform, even though in section 2A it specifically provides protections for such providers to "restrict access to or availability of material that the provider...considers to be obscene...or otherwise objectionable". If it is not allowed for a platform to remove content they find objectionable, then why call it out as protected here?