5 ms·

I disagree on the overstepping. Twitter is a private company and can do what they want. There's entire forums online dedicated to flat earth theory, government

by nichos 6y ago

I disagree on the overstepping. Twitter is a private company and can do what they want. There's entire forums online dedicated to flat earth theory, government intervention is not needed.

tesmar2 6y ago
Then 230 protections should be removed.
- downandout 6y ago
  Exactly. They are either a publisher or a platform. There is no in between. They need to take their pick, and deal with the liability if they want to continue on the publisher path.
  - tzs 6y ago
    > They are either a publisher or a platform. There is no in between. In the print world there is an in between: distributors, such as bookstores, newsstands, and libraries. They do not become liable for false claims in books they sell. It is the authors or publishers of those books who are liable. If the bookstore itself produced libelous material, such as in a press release, they would be liable for that.
    - downandout 6y ago
      Book distributors generally will carry any book given them by a publisher, regardless of content. Twitter is engaging in moderation, which puts them not just in the business of distribution. They are playing the publisher role - receiving content from authors and deciding whether or not to publish it. That is the very definition of a publisher. And yes, publishers can indeed be sued.
- Jonnax 6y ago
  "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." You want to remove this? So the runners of every forum on the internet will be responsible for content posted?
  - downandout 6y ago
    Not all forums engage in this type of moderation. In fact, most don’t. At some point, moderation turns you into a publisher. For example, book publishers generally work by receiving content from authors, deciding which works they would like to publish while rejecting others, and then using their distribution power to send it out to people around the world. What part of that process is different from what Twitter is engaging in here?
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      Really? I'm gonna say that posting pics of your butt on non-porn forums is gonna get you booted from most of them, likewise if you post spam or contraband media. Even on social media where no moderation facilities exist, if one or a few participants are serially abusing the channel and can't be persuaded to stop or leave, the other users will tend to set up a new channel that doesn't include those bad actors and be more careful about who they invite in future.
      - downandout 6y ago
        We are talking about censoring speech that is otherwise acceptable under the TOS, not “pics of your butt”.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
        It sounds like you are complaining about the inability to game the system (in this case the TOS) by demanding that all potential abuses be proscribed in advance or excluded from moderation.

by nichos 6y ago

I disagree on the overstepping. Twitter is a private company and can do what they want. There's entire forums online dedicated to flat earth theory, government intervention is not needed.

tesmar2 6y ago

Then 230 protections should be removed.

downandout 6y ago
Exactly. They are either a publisher or a platform. There is no in between. They need to take their pick, and deal with the liability if they want to continue on the publisher path.
- tzs 6y ago
  > They are either a publisher or a platform. There is no in between. In the print world there is an in between: distributors, such as bookstores, newsstands, and libraries. They do not become liable for false claims in books they sell. It is the authors or publishers of those books who are liable. If the bookstore itself produced libelous material, such as in a press release, they would be liable for that.
  - downandout 6y ago
    Book distributors generally will carry any book given them by a publisher, regardless of content. Twitter is engaging in moderation, which puts them not just in the business of distribution. They are playing the publisher role - receiving content from authors and deciding whether or not to publish it. That is the very definition of a publisher. And yes, publishers can indeed be sued.
Jonnax 6y ago
"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." You want to remove this? So the runners of every forum on the internet will be responsible for content posted?
- downandout 6y ago
  Not all forums engage in this type of moderation. In fact, most don’t. At some point, moderation turns you into a publisher. For example, book publishers generally work by receiving content from authors, deciding which works they would like to publish while rejecting others, and then using their distribution power to send it out to people around the world. What part of that process is different from what Twitter is engaging in here?
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Really? I'm gonna say that posting pics of your butt on non-porn forums is gonna get you booted from most of them, likewise if you post spam or contraband media. Even on social media where no moderation facilities exist, if one or a few participants are serially abusing the channel and can't be persuaded to stop or leave, the other users will tend to set up a new channel that doesn't include those bad actors and be more careful about who they invite in future.
    - downandout 6y ago
      We are talking about censoring speech that is otherwise acceptable under the TOS, not “pics of your butt”.
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        It sounds like you are complaining about the inability to game the system (in this case the TOS) by demanding that all potential abuses be proscribed in advance or excluded from moderation.