4 ms·

What part of being banned from Twitter prevents someone from being heard? Also, who is getting banned for talking about the politicians? #2, #7, and #8 (obliq

What part of being banned from Twitter prevents someone from being heard? Also, who is getting banned for talking about the politicians? #2, #7, and #8 (obliquely) on trending right now are about the main politician who was banned...

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
I don't care about Trump getting banned from twitter. I care about the coordinated takedown of parler by google, apple and soon amazon. Section 230 is supposed to protect free speech on the internet by shielding platforms of legal liability for user generated content. But if a few tech monopolies can just kick a platform off the internet because they don't like its user generated content then what the hell is the point? Section 230 is only useful if you still have a platform to a protect.
- thewindowmovie5 6y ago
  The demand from Apple was that Parler start moderation of the content which was trying to plan an armed version of what hand in Capitol on Jan 19th. Which, after seeing what happened recently, seems like a fair demand. I continue to see plenty of right and left leaning views in YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
- grumple 6y ago
  Why should these companies be forced to provide access to a platform that’s largely used for coordinating insurrection and fomenting hate?
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    Its not.
    - grumple 6y ago
      Every source I’ve seen disagrees with you.
- dd36 6y ago
  Web apps work still.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  >But if a few tech monopolies can just kick a platform off the internet because they don't like its user generated content then what the hell is the point? ... and yet somehow user-generated pornographic content (c.f. OnlyFans), which is never ever going to be in anyone's app store, somehow exists and by all accounts is exceedingly popular.
- betterunix2 6y ago
  Section 230 is not supposed to promote free speech. It is supposed to promote a sustainable market for Internet services at various levels. An unmoderated Internet is not sustainable because it is overrun by trolls and nazis, and various kinds of unlawful activities; some degree of moderation is needed, but without liability protection nobody would take on that risk. Parler has not been kicked off the Internet, it has only been removed from app stores. It can be hosted as a website if meeting the demands of those tech companies -- which amount to doing a better job of preventing terrorists from using the app to organize a violent overthrow of the US government -- and users can just visit that website.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  Something I’ve been thinking about a bit lately, with this Section 230 topic, is at what point do we actually hit the limit for, “go start your own”? Do racists have to build their own Internet in order to ensure they can spread a racist message digitally? That said, Twitter isn’t that line, and neither are app stores. I’m typing this in a Safari browser on my iPhone; HN doesn’t have or need an app.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago

I don't care about Trump getting banned from twitter. I care about the coordinated takedown of parler by google, apple and soon amazon. Section 230 is supposed to protect free speech on the internet by shielding platforms of legal liability for user generated content. But if a few tech monopolies can just kick a platform off the internet because they don't like its user generated content then what the hell is the point? Section 230 is only useful if you still have a platform to a protect.

thewindowmovie5 6y ago
The demand from Apple was that Parler start moderation of the content which was trying to plan an armed version of what hand in Capitol on Jan 19th. Which, after seeing what happened recently, seems like a fair demand. I continue to see plenty of right and left leaning views in YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
grumple 6y ago
Why should these companies be forced to provide access to a platform that’s largely used for coordinating insurrection and fomenting hate?
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  Its not.
  - grumple 6y ago
    Every source I’ve seen disagrees with you.
dd36 6y ago
Web apps work still.
NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
>But if a few tech monopolies can just kick a platform off the internet because they don't like its user generated content then what the hell is the point? ... and yet somehow user-generated pornographic content (c.f. OnlyFans), which is never ever going to be in anyone's app store, somehow exists and by all accounts is exceedingly popular.
betterunix2 6y ago
Section 230 is not supposed to promote free speech. It is supposed to promote a sustainable market for Internet services at various levels. An unmoderated Internet is not sustainable because it is overrun by trolls and nazis, and various kinds of unlawful activities; some degree of moderation is needed, but without liability protection nobody would take on that risk. Parler has not been kicked off the Internet, it has only been removed from app stores. It can be hosted as a website if meeting the demands of those tech companies -- which amount to doing a better job of preventing terrorists from using the app to organize a violent overthrow of the US government -- and users can just visit that website.
TameAntelope 6y ago
Something I’ve been thinking about a bit lately, with this Section 230 topic, is at what point do we actually hit the limit for, “go start your own”? Do racists have to build their own Internet in order to ensure they can spread a racist message digitally? That said, Twitter isn’t that line, and neither are app stores. I’m typing this in a Safari browser on my iPhone; HN doesn’t have or need an app.