3 ms·

>This seems like a silly post on first reading, but actually thinking about it, that would mean the first amendment actually applies to Twitter right? Without

>This seems like a silly post on first reading, but actually thinking about it, that would mean the first amendment actually applies to Twitter right? Without Section 230 Twitter would be liable for every evil thing that is said on their platform. What Section 230 does is create a category in which you are not liable for the content on the platform but they specifically setup limited rules for what can be censored. All censorship must be done in good faith. Lewd, obscene, harassment etc is censorable. But again good faith, you cant just say everything is harassment or obscene so you can censor speech. So absolutely, twitter is legally obligated to allow free speech. The big controversy is that they are clearly in violation of this but nobody is punishing them. They just get away with it. >It's an interesting mind exercise. What happens with blatant spamming, or bots, is the government allowed to interfere with those? Or does the 1st amendment block that too? No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or So twitter could ban porn under lewd category but they choose not to do. Same with gore and obscenity in general. You dont have to censor these things, but you can if you please. Censoring political speech under any of those categories is going to be virtually impossible to justify that they are doing this in good faith.

shkkmo 5y ago
You seem slightly confused about what 230 does. What it does is allow companies to do some moderation without legally liable as publishers for all content they host. Without section 230 companies have a choice to either do no moderation or to assume full liability as publishers. Section 230 was created to encorage online moderation by removing the liability that moderation would bring in an offline context.
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >You seem slightly confused about what 230 does. What it does is allow companies to do some moderation without legally liable as publishers for all content they host. I did copy and paste the law. It's clear to me what is says and the free speech that is required. Censorship must be done in good faith. >Without section 230 companies have a choice to either do no moderation or to assume full liability as publishers. Without section 230 they would assume full liability as publisher. >Section 230 was created to encorage online moderation by removing the liability that moderation would bring in an offline context. Section 230 was created to allow entities like twitter to exist. Without section 230 twitter stops existing. Let's be realistic, Elon just put $9 billion down because his poll showed significant problem with censorship. Fixing this will take twitter from $40 billion to much higher.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    There was case law before s.230 was passed, which said what parent claimed: if you moderated your content you carried liability as a publisher, if you were careful not to look at what went up on your service then you didn't. s.230 was added to the Communications Decency Act specifically to remove that perverse incentive in order to encourage 'family friendly' moderation. That's it. It doesn't anywhere require good faith. The entire legislative history is on record. And it long predates Twitter.
    - incomingpain 5y ago
      >There was case law before s.230 was passed, The CDA was from 1996. What social media predated 1996? Even ICQ does not predate the CDA. > It doesn't anywhere require good faith. I literally copy and pasted the law. It literally has the words good faith in it. >The entire legislative history is on record. And it long predates Twitter. Section 230 long predated all of the things. It is how they function today.
      - papercrane 5y ago
        > The CDA was from 1996. What social media predated 1996? Even ICQ does not predate the CDA. Forums existed well before 1996. Both CompuServe and Prodigy were found liable for things people posted on forums on their platforms.
        incomingpain 5y ago
        >Forums existed well before 1996. Both CompuServe and Prodigy were found liable for things people posted on forums on their platforms. Dont take me as opposing the CDA. I think Section 230 is superb and necessary. What I believe is that we simply enforce the rules. Free speech is guaranteed on twitter.
        papercrane 5y ago
        Your reading of the "good faith" requirement is not in line with how it's been interpreted by the courts. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

shkkmo 5y ago

You seem slightly confused about what 230 does. What it does is allow companies to do some moderation without legally liable as publishers for all content they host. Without section 230 companies have a choice to either do no moderation or to assume full liability as publishers. Section 230 was created to encorage online moderation by removing the liability that moderation would bring in an offline context.

incomingpain 5y ago
>You seem slightly confused about what 230 does. What it does is allow companies to do some moderation without legally liable as publishers for all content they host. I did copy and paste the law. It's clear to me what is says and the free speech that is required. Censorship must be done in good faith. >Without section 230 companies have a choice to either do no moderation or to assume full liability as publishers. Without section 230 they would assume full liability as publisher. >Section 230 was created to encorage online moderation by removing the liability that moderation would bring in an offline context. Section 230 was created to allow entities like twitter to exist. Without section 230 twitter stops existing. Let's be realistic, Elon just put $9 billion down because his poll showed significant problem with censorship. Fixing this will take twitter from $40 billion to much higher.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  There was case law before s.230 was passed, which said what parent claimed: if you moderated your content you carried liability as a publisher, if you were careful not to look at what went up on your service then you didn't. s.230 was added to the Communications Decency Act specifically to remove that perverse incentive in order to encourage 'family friendly' moderation. That's it. It doesn't anywhere require good faith. The entire legislative history is on record. And it long predates Twitter.
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    >There was case law before s.230 was passed, The CDA was from 1996. What social media predated 1996? Even ICQ does not predate the CDA. > It doesn't anywhere require good faith. I literally copy and pasted the law. It literally has the words good faith in it. >The entire legislative history is on record. And it long predates Twitter. Section 230 long predated all of the things. It is how they function today.
    - papercrane 5y ago
      > The CDA was from 1996. What social media predated 1996? Even ICQ does not predate the CDA. Forums existed well before 1996. Both CompuServe and Prodigy were found liable for things people posted on forums on their platforms.
      - incomingpain 5y ago
        >Forums existed well before 1996. Both CompuServe and Prodigy were found liable for things people posted on forums on their platforms. Dont take me as opposing the CDA. I think Section 230 is superb and necessary. What I believe is that we simply enforce the rules. Free speech is guaranteed on twitter.
        papercrane 5y ago
        Your reading of the "good faith" requirement is not in line with how it's been interpreted by the courts. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...