3 ms·
Ok, we are in violent agreement then. The usual thrust of “TwitFace did this” arguments is a call for regulation.
by closeparen 6y ago
Ok, we are in violent agreement then. The usual thrust of “TwitFace did this” arguments is a call for regulation.
- triceratops 6y agoAny regulation is going to be a tricky needle to thread. On the one hand you have the Section 230 "truthers" who seem intent on peddling their publisher/platform horseshit. They don't seem to understand that if TwitFace were liable for the crap their users posted, they'd start moderating way harder. No more anonymity, ability to serve libel lawsuits to any user, hours-long moderation queues to control the crap. It could mean the end of honest online reviews (whatever's left of them). And if they try to condition Section 230 liability protections on "neutrality", it'll get shot down in court really fast because forcing any point of view even "neutrality" (whatever that means) is an infringement on free speech. And if viewpoint "neutrality" does become enshrined in the law, every single message board, social media site, or other discussion platform will either shut down (because it's not profitable or worth the hassle) or turn into a hellscape of spam, porn, and trolls. Any legal content, no matter how off-topic, disruptive, flame-baity, troll-y, insulting or whatever, will have to be allowed. Otherwise you aren't "neutral" anymore, right? Of course, IANAL or a fortune teller, so I may be completely wrong about this.