4 ms·

Twitter 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 DM

Twitter 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 ago
  Section 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.
      - abernard1 5y ago
        > It doesn't matter! That's their legal right, which the first amendment (and section 230) both protect. Agreed! Corporations are people too! > Examples Here: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-sued-for-failing-to-take-down-child-porn-videos/ https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-su... > Is that really the model you want twitter to follow? I want Twitter to pick a model. In fact, I don't really care model they pick: they should be held legally liable when they curate an editorial headline that is libelous. If they decide that they're going to be a social "network" again (remember that word?) and not social "media" which steals content from their users, selecting a narrative ("some Twitter users are saying..."), then I don't care. That would be a world in which section 230 protections are valid. But as it stands, all Twitter is a mass narrative shaping device. All views are welcome, as long as they line up with the ever-changing, unknown corporate values of Twitter. Which is to say: Twitter picks speech to promote and yet is not accountable for it. > As I implied above, the NYT doesn't need 230 protection because they engage in much stronger censorship than twitter does. They do need 230 protection, because they've been sued over and over again for libel. Twitter's editors have not yet been, and according to this article, they actively prevent the process of legal discovery by a court when they don't need to. > That's not a motte and bailey though. That's just how rights work. This is about their process of argumentation. They used to say they were "The Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party." Ha. Ha. That's the ideological argument they're sheepishly putting forward in this legal brief, and thankfully people can notice the argumentative bad faith even if they have legal standing to do so.

abernard1 5y ago

Dracophoenix 5y ago
Section 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.
    - abernard1 5y ago
      > It doesn't matter! That's their legal right, which the first amendment (and section 230) both protect. Agreed! Corporations are people too! > Examples Here: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-sued-for-failing-to-take-down-child-porn-videos/ https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-su... > Is that really the model you want twitter to follow? I want Twitter to pick a model. In fact, I don't really care model they pick: they should be held legally liable when they curate an editorial headline that is libelous. If they decide that they're going to be a social "network" again (remember that word?) and not social "media" which steals content from their users, selecting a narrative ("some Twitter users are saying..."), then I don't care. That would be a world in which section 230 protections are valid. But as it stands, all Twitter is a mass narrative shaping device. All views are welcome, as long as they line up with the ever-changing, unknown corporate values of Twitter. Which is to say: Twitter picks speech to promote and yet is not accountable for it. > As I implied above, the NYT doesn't need 230 protection because they engage in much stronger censorship than twitter does. They do need 230 protection, because they've been sued over and over again for libel. Twitter's editors have not yet been, and according to this article, they actively prevent the process of legal discovery by a court when they don't need to. > That's not a motte and bailey though. That's just how rights work. This is about their process of argumentation. They used to say they were "The Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party." Ha. Ha. That's the ideological argument they're sheepishly putting forward in this legal brief, and thankfully people can notice the argumentative bad faith even if they have legal standing to do so.