4 ms·

Fair point and well said. I would call it a stretch to lock the account of a US newspaper until said newspaper removed a story it "printed". I know anyone can p

Fair point and well said. I would call it a stretch to lock the account of a US newspaper until said newspaper removed a story it "printed". I know anyone can post a link from someplace supporting nearly any position but can we agree the Business Insider is at least not the national enquirer? https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-ny-post-remains-locked-out-twitter-hunter-biden-2020-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-ny-post-remains-... Moderation is a long way from outright ban-hammering a US newspaper over their posting of a news story. What Twitter specifically did here more or less makes them an unofficial editor at NYPost. Thats not acceptable. Ask yourself this simple question - if the roles were reversed and Twitter was run by a Republican and they locked the Washington Post's account because it printed an unfavorable article about Donald Trump - what would you call that action?

judge2020 6y ago
It’s certainly a call to action, but all too often each reply in a thread like this is just coming at it from the legal side when the parent was coming at it from the moral side (or vice versa). This is one of those situations - the comment you’re replying to is only explaining how it works currently.
- free_rms 6y ago
  The thing about the moral side is that we already have a bunch of jurisprudence around the 1st amendment. Yes, companies aren't bound by it legally, but it'd be a great moral guide to follow if that's what they're after.
majormajor 6y ago
Two media companies having a dispute and one stopping carrying the other for a while happens all the time in the TV industry. I don't see much of a connection to 230 at all on this issue. Once we wade into this particular nonsense we have to bring up Twitter's own first amendment issues - you're gonna force them to put certain things on their own platform? - and get into a whole other can of worms. The real action to take here is antitrust type stuff to limit the size of any single media outlet or platform anyway.

judge2020 6y ago

It’s certainly a call to action, but all too often each reply in a thread like this is just coming at it from the legal side when the parent was coming at it from the moral side (or vice versa). This is one of those situations - the comment you’re replying to is only explaining how it works currently.

free_rms 6y ago
The thing about the moral side is that we already have a bunch of jurisprudence around the 1st amendment. Yes, companies aren't bound by it legally, but it'd be a great moral guide to follow if that's what they're after.

majormajor 6y ago

Two media companies having a dispute and one stopping carrying the other for a while happens all the time in the TV industry. I don't see much of a connection to 230 at all on this issue. Once we wade into this particular nonsense we have to bring up Twitter's own first amendment issues - you're gonna force them to put certain things on their own platform? - and get into a whole other can of worms. The real action to take here is antitrust type stuff to limit the size of any single media outlet or platform anyway.