3 ms·

Twitter is helping the argument that platforms are to be content moderators. This kills 230. This will entrench Twitter as one of the few social media services

Twitter is helping the argument that platforms are to be content moderators. This kills 230. This will entrench Twitter as one of the few social media services capable, due to the need to moderate at scale.

vlmutolo 6y ago
It’s funny — I found this link a few days ago and now it seems like it applies here. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... It’s a summary of how section 230 works and is worded. The tone of the piece is overly hash and critical of its readers (prompting me unnecessarily to write this paragraph), but it raises some good points, and I was surprised by more than one of the clarifications it made. Basically, as it applies here, I don’t think Twitter moderating its content to remove SciHub goes against Section 230. My understanding is that it’s specifically covered by 230.
- adolph 6y ago
  I'm not saying the article is totally wrong, but at least one of the studies they linked to is Internet industry funded (NetChoice: "Described by Politico as tech's most aggressive lobbying presence in Washington D.C."), and authored by one "Michael Masnick" which is the same name as the author of the Techdirt article and also the name of Techdirt's founder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techdirt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techdirt So, until something is litigated to the point of SCOTUS precedent, I think most things are at the level of "that's just like, your opinion, man."
guerrilla 6y ago
Creating a giant barrier to entry for competition?
- brutal_chaos_ 6y ago
  Yes, because of the tooling that will be an upfront requirement and cost. However, as pointed out elsewhere, much litigation is still needed to really understand the extent of 230 and thus, "this is like my own opinion, man."

vlmutolo 6y ago

It’s funny — I found this link a few days ago and now it seems like it applies here. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... It’s a summary of how section 230 works and is worded. The tone of the piece is overly hash and critical of its readers (prompting me unnecessarily to write this paragraph), but it raises some good points, and I was surprised by more than one of the clarifications it made. Basically, as it applies here, I don’t think Twitter moderating its content to remove SciHub goes against Section 230. My understanding is that it’s specifically covered by 230.

adolph 6y ago
I'm not saying the article is totally wrong, but at least one of the studies they linked to is Internet industry funded (NetChoice: "Described by Politico as tech's most aggressive lobbying presence in Washington D.C."), and authored by one "Michael Masnick" which is the same name as the author of the Techdirt article and also the name of Techdirt's founder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techdirt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techdirt So, until something is litigated to the point of SCOTUS precedent, I think most things are at the level of "that's just like, your opinion, man."

guerrilla 6y ago

Creating a giant barrier to entry for competition?

brutal_chaos_ 6y ago
Yes, because of the tooling that will be an upfront requirement and cost. However, as pointed out elsewhere, much litigation is still needed to really understand the extent of 230 and thus, "this is like my own opinion, man."