5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > 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 Give me an example of such a headline. Note that a tweet, any tweet, is not twitters editorial content. So you're looking for something like the trending topics headlines (which Twitter doesn't have 230 protection regarding!) Because, and this is really important: legally speaking, Twitter doesn't exercise editorial control over tweets. Moderation isn't editorial control under the law. > They used to say they were "The Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party." Twitter did? I sure didn't. Who are you talking about? > Here: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-su https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-su... This is not the dunk you think it is. In a world without section 230, Twitter would be required to leave this content up short of a court order.
olliej 5y ago
What are examples of content twitter has censored that you think it should be required to carry?

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.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > 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 Give me an example of such a headline. Note that a tweet, any tweet, is not twitters editorial content. So you're looking for something like the trending topics headlines (which Twitter doesn't have 230 protection regarding!) Because, and this is really important: legally speaking, Twitter doesn't exercise editorial control over tweets. Moderation isn't editorial control under the law. > They used to say they were "The Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party." Twitter did? I sure didn't. Who are you talking about? > Here: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-su https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-twitter-can-be-su... This is not the dunk you think it is. In a world without section 230, Twitter would be required to leave this content up short of a court order.

olliej 5y ago

What are examples of content twitter has censored that you think it should be required to carry?