14 ms·

Maybe it's the headline that is misleading you, or it's a symptom of our times. In any case: it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did

Maybe it's the headline that is misleading you, or it's a symptom of our times. In any case: it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did not know or agree that the person in the video was a minor. The insinuation that it's Twitter policy to distribute child pornography is laughable. They have absolutely nothing to gain from it. As to liability: Section 230 is about exactly that situation: trying to limit damaging material on your platform does not create any liability even if you fail. Because the alternative, where you either allow your platform to be flooded with swastikas and pornography or get sued for every single mistake you make, is unworkable.

kenjackson 6y ago
The article is from the NY Post. This makes me question it right out the gate. And I just find it hard to believe that Twitter would want to keep something like this up, since it is illegal content. There is no incentive for them to do so, and the NY Post isn't the publication to dive into this at all.
throwaway894345 6y ago
> Because the alternative, where you either allow your platform to be flooded with swastikas and pornography or get sued for every single mistake you make, is unworkable. The current model isn't workable either. Social media networks and their ad-driven models have hollowed out our democracies by sowing outrage and division at every opportunity. If one believes "The Social Dilemma", these networks have a dial for tuning public opinion that can even steer election outcomes (if you subscribe to the "Russia used bots to hack the 2016 election" theory, then you must agree). Maybe we should rethink the role of social media networks. Perhaps they monopolize too much communication to trust them to curate which voices are amplified and which are suppressed. The discourse around this issue has been really strange, with the usual critics of corporate power rallying to defend social media giants and their rights and qualifications to curate such an enormous portion of our collective speech. Perhaps we should consider these networks to be more "dumb pipes" rather than "curators", and instead we should expect these networks to provide us with our own curation/moderation mechanisms. If there really is no workable social media model--that is, if they really can't deliver some net-positive social good (or at least some smaller net harm, like sex work, drugs/alcohol, tobacco, etc), then maybe we should regulate them out of existence?
- halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
  This honestly just reads like paranoia. Social media isn’t sowing anything. It’s the people on the platform and the recommendation algorithms behind the platform. edit: sew/sow
  - stretchcat 6y ago
    It's the individual users who create the posts, but it's the social media companies using software to select posts to display to others. 'Sow' means to spread or disperse seeds, or when used figuratively, to spread around or propagate something in general. Automated recommendation systems seem to fit the word. They're not creating these seeds, but they sure are sowing them far and wide. (Sewing is what you do with a needle and thread.)
    - halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
      I understood the point. My point is that propoganda and it's distribution channels have existed for as long as human speech has. A new distribution channel isn't the problem, it's a society that cannot think for themselves and distinguish between what is real and what is not. Blaming the platform is scapegoating the real problem.
      - stretchcat 6y ago
        I suppose my point and probably the point of the other commenter above is that social media companies utilizing content recommendation systems are not merely distribution channels, by virtue of recommending content. Those recommendations go beyond distribution. And to be clear, I am blaming corporations for creating these platforms, not blaming the platforms themselves.
        halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
        I hear you. I agree that there's the incentive for platforms to serve content you want to see and will engage with but is it Facebook's responsibility to stop you from becoming more extreme? How do you even define extreme? There's obvious answers but I'm sure there's a lot less obvious ones too that are impossible to police.
edbob 6y ago
> In any case: it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did not know or agree that the person in the video was a minor. The lawsuit alleges precisely that Twitter had ample evidence to know that he was a minor. How about we let the case play out instead of assuming innocence?
- sangnoir 6y ago
  > How about we let the case play out instead of assuming innocence? Excuse me?!
- jjk166 6y ago
  We don't assume guilt until proven innocent
  - testrun 6y ago
    I think you meant 'we assume innocence until proven guilty'
    - icebraining 6y ago
      No, that's what courts do. People can assume nothing.
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      You're both saying the same thing - only that parent used the negated form of your statement.
thereare5lights 6y ago
> it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did not know or agree that the person in the video was a minor. They were given government id. This point is invalid.
stretchcat 6y ago
> In any case: it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did not know or agree that the person in the video was a minor Or the moderator was [pick as many as you like]: Lazy, overworked, incompetent, or a scumbag.
jdxcode 6y ago
230 does not protect against criminal liability: 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...
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
I respectfully disagree. I can place a contrarian, a nitpicker, a bully, even an algo, as twitter's manager of content. Twitter Users submit CP complaints. Then 99.99% responses are: "After careful review of the content, we have not found this material violets twitter policy of no CP on our sites" Truth is the eye of the beholder. Thus, if the beholder is responsible for the decision and it is wrong, should they not be held accountable in the court of law? Even if it means lots of lawsuits?

kenjackson 6y ago

The article is from the NY Post. This makes me question it right out the gate. And I just find it hard to believe that Twitter would want to keep something like this up, since it is illegal content. There is no incentive for them to do so, and the NY Post isn't the publication to dive into this at all.

throwaway894345 6y ago

> Because the alternative, where you either allow your platform to be flooded with swastikas and pornography or get sued for every single mistake you make, is unworkable. The current model isn't workable either. Social media networks and their ad-driven models have hollowed out our democracies by sowing outrage and division at every opportunity. If one believes "The Social Dilemma", these networks have a dial for tuning public opinion that can even steer election outcomes (if you subscribe to the "Russia used bots to hack the 2016 election" theory, then you must agree). Maybe we should rethink the role of social media networks. Perhaps they monopolize too much communication to trust them to curate which voices are amplified and which are suppressed. The discourse around this issue has been really strange, with the usual critics of corporate power rallying to defend social media giants and their rights and qualifications to curate such an enormous portion of our collective speech. Perhaps we should consider these networks to be more "dumb pipes" rather than "curators", and instead we should expect these networks to provide us with our own curation/moderation mechanisms. If there really is no workable social media model--that is, if they really can't deliver some net-positive social good (or at least some smaller net harm, like sex work, drugs/alcohol, tobacco, etc), then maybe we should regulate them out of existence?

halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
This honestly just reads like paranoia. Social media isn’t sowing anything. It’s the people on the platform and the recommendation algorithms behind the platform. edit: sew/sow
- stretchcat 6y ago
  It's the individual users who create the posts, but it's the social media companies using software to select posts to display to others. 'Sow' means to spread or disperse seeds, or when used figuratively, to spread around or propagate something in general. Automated recommendation systems seem to fit the word. They're not creating these seeds, but they sure are sowing them far and wide. (Sewing is what you do with a needle and thread.)
  - halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
    I understood the point. My point is that propoganda and it's distribution channels have existed for as long as human speech has. A new distribution channel isn't the problem, it's a society that cannot think for themselves and distinguish between what is real and what is not. Blaming the platform is scapegoating the real problem.
    - stretchcat 6y ago
      I suppose my point and probably the point of the other commenter above is that social media companies utilizing content recommendation systems are not merely distribution channels, by virtue of recommending content. Those recommendations go beyond distribution. And to be clear, I am blaming corporations for creating these platforms, not blaming the platforms themselves.
      - halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
        I hear you. I agree that there's the incentive for platforms to serve content you want to see and will engage with but is it Facebook's responsibility to stop you from becoming more extreme? How do you even define extreme? There's obvious answers but I'm sure there's a lot less obvious ones too that are impossible to police.

edbob 6y ago

> In any case: it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did not know or agree that the person in the video was a minor. The lawsuit alleges precisely that Twitter had ample evidence to know that he was a minor. How about we let the case play out instead of assuming innocence?

sangnoir 6y ago
> How about we let the case play out instead of assuming innocence? Excuse me?!
jjk166 6y ago
We don't assume guilt until proven innocent
- testrun 6y ago
  I think you meant 'we assume innocence until proven guilty'
  - icebraining 6y ago
    No, that's what courts do. People can assume nothing.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    You're both saying the same thing - only that parent used the negated form of your statement.

thereare5lights 6y ago

> it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did not know or agree that the person in the video was a minor. They were given government id. This point is invalid.

stretchcat 6y ago

> In any case: it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did not know or agree that the person in the video was a minor Or the moderator was [pick as many as you like]: Lazy, overworked, incompetent, or a scumbag.

jdxcode 6y ago

230 does not protect against criminal liability: 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...

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

I respectfully disagree. I can place a contrarian, a nitpicker, a bully, even an algo, as twitter's manager of content. Twitter Users submit CP complaints. Then 99.99% responses are: "After careful review of the content, we have not found this material violets twitter policy of no CP on our sites" Truth is the eye of the beholder. Thus, if the beholder is responsible for the decision and it is wrong, should they not be held accountable in the court of law? Even if it means lots of lawsuits?