3 ms·

Twitter can remove his "platform", while still showing his messages to those who directly followed him. i.e. don't show his messages except to people who specif

by ars 6y ago

Twitter can remove his "platform", while still showing his messages to those who directly followed him. i.e. don't show his messages except to people who specifically followed him. This is like the Post Office deciding not to deliver mail. > And incitement of violence has never been protected speech. I saw an incitement to protest, but I saw nothing encouraging violence. Do you have an links to anything like that?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> This is like the Post Office deciding not to deliver mail. Twitter isn’t a government corporation with a legally-mandatory monopoly, so, no, its more like me choosing not to pass on something I got from a politician a disagree with.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  You probably wouldn’t be passing it on to several million people, so that comparison isn’t even close.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > You probably wouldn’t be passing it on to several million people, so that comparison isn’t even close. If freedom of speech and the press is curtailed precisely because the speaker or publisher has a large audience so the curtailment most efficiently gives government control of messaging, that doesn’t make it better.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      Honest question: Why do you think Twitter is a publisher, in the sense of a newspaper, for example?
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Why do you think Twitter is a publisher, in the sense of a newspaper, for example? Because, like a newspaper, they provide an actively curated compilation of information received from a variety of contracted sources to readers. Sure, much (but not all) of the curation is algorithmic, and the direct sources are mostly not under employment contract and not getting paid money for the content (either providing it for free or paying money for reach), while for most newspapers many of the direct sources would be under employment contract and they and others would be getting paid money for the input they provide into the curated product, but that difference doesn't seem particularly relevant to whether Twitter is a publisher. And, yes, a lot of the algorithmic curation is driven by explicit reader expression of preference, and some of the rest is driven by inferred reader preference from reader behavior. But that the curated product is highly personalized also doesn't seem relevant to how free expression rights apply to curation choices. For purposes of civil liability, Twitter is not a “publisher” solely because of Section 230, but since we are discussing how the Constitution applies to them (which Congress could not change by statute) not how civil liability applies to them, that's not relevant.
dredmorbius 6y ago
There is a substantial set of material which the USPS does not permit to be mailed: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/part-IV/chapter-30 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/part-IV/chapter-3...

by ars 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> This is like the Post Office deciding not to deliver mail. Twitter isn’t a government corporation with a legally-mandatory monopoly, so, no, its more like me choosing not to pass on something I got from a politician a disagree with.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
You probably wouldn’t be passing it on to several million people, so that comparison isn’t even close.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > You probably wouldn’t be passing it on to several million people, so that comparison isn’t even close. If freedom of speech and the press is curtailed precisely because the speaker or publisher has a large audience so the curtailment most efficiently gives government control of messaging, that doesn’t make it better.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Honest question: Why do you think Twitter is a publisher, in the sense of a newspaper, for example?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Why do you think Twitter is a publisher, in the sense of a newspaper, for example? Because, like a newspaper, they provide an actively curated compilation of information received from a variety of contracted sources to readers. Sure, much (but not all) of the curation is algorithmic, and the direct sources are mostly not under employment contract and not getting paid money for the content (either providing it for free or paying money for reach), while for most newspapers many of the direct sources would be under employment contract and they and others would be getting paid money for the input they provide into the curated product, but that difference doesn't seem particularly relevant to whether Twitter is a publisher. And, yes, a lot of the algorithmic curation is driven by explicit reader expression of preference, and some of the rest is driven by inferred reader preference from reader behavior. But that the curated product is highly personalized also doesn't seem relevant to how free expression rights apply to curation choices. For purposes of civil liability, Twitter is not a “publisher” solely because of Section 230, but since we are discussing how the Constitution applies to them (which Congress could not change by statute) not how civil liability applies to them, that's not relevant.

dredmorbius 6y ago

There is a substantial set of material which the USPS does not permit to be mailed: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/part-IV/chapter-30 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/part-IV/chapter-3...