11 ms·
> Hopefully the court will revisit that initial decision and recognize that we don't just throw out the 1st Amendment because someone somewhere screams "copyrig
by abernard1 5y ago
> Hopefully the court will revisit that initial decision and recognize that we don't just throw out the 1st Amendment because someone somewhere screams "copyright!"
This is the glorious lack of self-awareness I've come to expect in tech discourse surrounding social media.
The last two years have been nothing but rationalizations for why Twitter can and should throw out the 1st Amendment. Their own CEO just went to the press talking about how the 1st Amendment does not apply to their business model.
Things that Twitter is comfortable censoring: stories about politicians from one party, politicians of the other party, people who make accurate claims around biology, claims which are "proven" false only be proven true a year later, verbatim retweets of government statistics, and in general... facts.
If Twitter wishes to remain neutral, then they should actually remain neutral. The immense effort they have gone to curate, comment on, and censor other users' content shows they have no desire to do so. The original logic for platform neutrality (and section 230)—that it is too costly for a platform to monitor content—is obviously false, as curation is critical to their trending stories and fact checks.
- mikeyouse 5y agoTwitter isn’t bound by the first amendment, the government is. The government telling Twitter to turn over account details because a user filed a fraudulent DMCA claim does have 1A implications. Twitter being bad and inconsistent at moderating doesn’t have anything to do with the 1A. The anonymous user in question screenshotted and then posted public IG pics vaguely implying that the IG user was in a relationship with a private equity manager. The woman who posted those pics then sold their rights to a shell company who is now suing that anonymous user to unmask their identity. They have no defamation or libel claim, which would give them the right to unmask the user — so they’re abusing copyright law to achieve the same ends. Twitters moderation policy and 230 immunity have nothing to do with this case.
- abernard1 5y ago
- Dracophoenix 5y agoSection 230 is not a motte and bailey. It applies to all content providers (from the root server, to the registrar, to the datacenter where the content is hosted). The law was written to protect providers from guilt by association.
- abernard1 5y ago> The law was written to protect providers from guilt by association. Indeed, so why is Twitter so eager to associate with some users and not others? Twitter has gone out of its way to censor and shutdown legal speech, while hiding behind S230 protections for illegal speech. I don't want to hear one more word like in this article about "chilling speech," when that platform has done more than anybody else to do so. By this logic, the NYT should just rebrand as a social media company so they can be protected from their own columnists. Libel away my friends! They want it both ways: "We, Twitter, have a right to sell ads on your content that is now ours, create headlines which might even be libelous and not be sued, and protect known criminal users on our platform even though we have no responsibility to do so." And coincidentally, most of the blocking happens one way. Whenever Twitter's called on the subtle bailey about how they vigorously ban people based upon their own corporate values, they retreat into the motte of 1st amendment free speech. I have to admit, that this group all of a sudden became the "Corporations are People Too!" people is quite delightful.
- joshuamorton 5y ago> Indeed, so why is Twitter so eager to associate with some users and not others? It doesn't matter! That's their legal right, which the first amendment (and section 230) both protect. The NYT exercises their own right to associate with some people and not others all the time, it's why Paul Krugman is published there regularly but I'm not! > while hiding behind S230 protections for illegal speech. Examples? > By this logic, the NYT should just rebrand as a social media company so they can be protected from their own columnists. Libel away my friends! As I implied above, the NYT doesn't need 230 protection because they engage in much stronger censorship than twitter does. Is that really the model you want twitter to follow? > Whenever Twitter's called on the subtle bailey about how they vigorously ban people based upon their own corporate values, they retreat into the motte of 1st amendment free speech. That's not a motte and bailey though. That's just how rights work. People get to exercise them, even in ways you personally dislike.
- drdeca 5y agoIf you want to criticize twitter’s behavior in this way, say “free speech protections”, not “1st amendment”. Twitter is not bound by the 1st amendment. It may be reasonable to criticize them on the grounds of not protecting speech as much as they should. But this should be a social and possibly moral criticism, not really a legal one.
- abernard1 5y ago> Twitter is not bound by the 1st amendment. Twitter is in fact bound by the first amendment when coerced by the government. We need to go back to all of two weeks ago to find an instance of a congressional candidate asking for their opponent, the sitting congresswoman, to be banned. Twitter did exactly this. Interpretations for that ban are open to debate, but they're also open to debate in court. If found that Twitter tends to comply with government censorship for fear of retribution, they are liable.
- duxup 5y ago> why Twitter can and should throw out the 1st Amendmen A user posting a tweet isn’t the beginning and end of the first amendment. Twitter has its own first amendment editorial rights. Editorial decisions are a part of the first amendment too.
- abernard1 5y ago> Editorial decisions are a part of the first amendment too. Agreed. And editors are liable for what they publish, which is something Twitter is claiming they aren't. Twitter's legal statement is not claiming either their rights to speech or editorial rights, which makes it moot. And now we're back to this being a user, responsible for the user's own speech, and Twitter conflating a privacy rights argument into a speech argument because it's easier for them to argue.
- joshuamorton 5y ago> and Twitter conflating a privacy rights argument into a speech argument because it's easier for them to argue. No, twitter is claiming that 1. The user has a right to free speech 2. The plaintiff is trying to breach the user's privacy, as a way to quash freely made speech 3. Twitter has the right to act to defend its user's privacy, even without that user 4. The plaintiff has not shown that the violation of the users privacy (a harm) is necessary. > Agreed. And editors are liable for what they publish, which is something Twitter is claiming they aren't. Yes, but not in the case of twitter because section 230 carves out an exception. But this isn't relevant to their argument, which is about protecting their users' privacy.
- abernard1 5y ago> 1. The user has a right to free speech The court has already ruled that the speech is not necessarily legal, and since the user has not responded, to initiate discovery, the user's contact information needs to be provided. Literally no other ordinary physical company could sit on evidence of a criminal and withhold it from a court under privacy concerns. > 2. The plaintiff is trying to breach the user's privacy, as a way to quash freely made speech So... fundamentally a privacy argument then? Exactly as I said. Twitter bans literally hundreds of people a day and "quash[es] freely made speech". Their CEO has said Twitter should “focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.” They don't care one bit about "chilling" free speech, and yet, read the bleeding heart defense of speech in this brief. The only pretext they have for keeping the user private is this defense of speech they've gleefully violated thousands of times per year.