5 ms·

The line between "user" and "bot" would get very murky very quickly. If you write a tweet and then use a bot to post it at a certain time of day, is your speech

by giaour 4y ago

The line between "user" and "bot" would get very murky very quickly. If you write a tweet and then use a bot to post it at a certain time of day, is your speech still protected, even if it was posted by a bot? What if you have the bot post it at the same time every day? What if you have the bot post it in reply to all tweets with a certain hashtag? Or just all tweets? In each of those cases, the original speech is a user's, and the bot is merely following the human user's publication instructions.

junofan 4y ago
Fortunately there’s hundreds of years of cases and frameworks to help us get this right. Application of the law won’t turn on minor technical details.
- giaour 4y ago
  That's my point as well. Twitter's terms of service allow automated users, so I have a hard time seeing how anyone would successfully convince a court that "users" under this law means "humans who write the content on twitter.com and then press a button on the same site to post it."
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    The law only disallows viewpoint-based censorship. Twitter remains free to write and enforce an acceptable-use policy that disallows "bot-like" behaviors, as long as the policy and enforcement is viewpoint-neutral.
    - FilterSweep 4y ago
      but what if the _flying spaghetti monster cult_ were disproportionate users of bots for their viewpoints? how does twitter disprove bias?
      - catiopatio 4y ago
        Twitter has no obligation under this law to disprove accusations of bias that arise due to disparate outcomes. Furthermore, such a requirement would backfire spectacularly on the conservative right; consider all the other areas where disparity of outcome arises today.
        FilterSweep 4y ago
        perhaps - or perhaps that ship has already sailed[0] [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-white-supremacy-gop-politicians-report-2019-4?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-...
    - giaour 4y ago
      What you're describing is possible would be a pretty big shift for Twitter and would make it simultaneously less pleasant and less useful. Under the policy you propose that would comply with the new Texas law, a bot that automatically posts new state regulations as they come into effect would be banned, but human Nazis could freely advocate for ethnic cleansing.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  The problem of course being that this ruling violates hundreds of years of cases and frameworks (and probably the constitution!), saying "we can rely on precedent" when this law flips precedent on its head is unhelpful.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    How does this law violate previous cases and frameworks when similar laws did not in the past (e.g. the Fairness Doctrine for TV and common carrier regulations for phones)?
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      The fairness doctrine relies very specifically on licensure of radio and broadcast TV frequency use (the government is the provider of all radio frequency licenses, and if you wish to use one, you must agree to certain additional terms. This is not the case for cable TV or the internet). As for common carriers, one of the usual differences between a common carrier and a not-common-carrier is that a common carrier can't tell what they're transporting. If I throw a box onto a fedex truck, they don't know what's in it. Same for a train (and they're allowed to refuse if they believe it's something they can't transport successfully or safely). The same general concept applies to telephone operators, in that they can't wiretap you, and often ISPs, since they're just transporting opaque encrypted bytes. But tweets and posts on public facebook pages or on reddit are public, the company can see them.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        > a common carrier can't tell what they're transporting They can tell what they're transporting, they're just not allowed to. Telephone operators could wiretap you (and use speech recognition to censor), ISPs could monitor unencrypted data, and even for encrypted data, monitor metadata like which server you connect to. Even FedEx could x-ray packages, or use drug sniffers. Anyway, you claimed this law violated previous precedents, but you've only responded about how it's different from previous precedents. Sure there are some differences, but how are those differences material to the question of whether governments are allowed to regulate "fair" or universal access to communications tech?

by giaour 4y ago

junofan 4y ago

Fortunately there’s hundreds of years of cases and frameworks to help us get this right. Application of the law won’t turn on minor technical details.

giaour 4y ago
That's my point as well. Twitter's terms of service allow automated users, so I have a hard time seeing how anyone would successfully convince a court that "users" under this law means "humans who write the content on twitter.com and then press a button on the same site to post it."
- catiopatio 4y ago
  The law only disallows viewpoint-based censorship. Twitter remains free to write and enforce an acceptable-use policy that disallows "bot-like" behaviors, as long as the policy and enforcement is viewpoint-neutral.
  - FilterSweep 4y ago
    but what if the _flying spaghetti monster cult_ were disproportionate users of bots for their viewpoints? how does twitter disprove bias?
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      Twitter has no obligation under this law to disprove accusations of bias that arise due to disparate outcomes. Furthermore, such a requirement would backfire spectacularly on the conservative right; consider all the other areas where disparity of outcome arises today.
      - FilterSweep 4y ago
        perhaps - or perhaps that ship has already sailed[0] [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-white-supremacy-gop-politicians-report-2019-4?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-...
  - giaour 4y ago
    What you're describing is possible would be a pretty big shift for Twitter and would make it simultaneously less pleasant and less useful. Under the policy you propose that would comply with the new Texas law, a bot that automatically posts new state regulations as they come into effect would be banned, but human Nazis could freely advocate for ethnic cleansing.
joshuamorton 4y ago
The problem of course being that this ruling violates hundreds of years of cases and frameworks (and probably the constitution!), saying "we can rely on precedent" when this law flips precedent on its head is unhelpful.
- leereeves 4y ago
  How does this law violate previous cases and frameworks when similar laws did not in the past (e.g. the Fairness Doctrine for TV and common carrier regulations for phones)?
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    The fairness doctrine relies very specifically on licensure of radio and broadcast TV frequency use (the government is the provider of all radio frequency licenses, and if you wish to use one, you must agree to certain additional terms. This is not the case for cable TV or the internet). As for common carriers, one of the usual differences between a common carrier and a not-common-carrier is that a common carrier can't tell what they're transporting. If I throw a box onto a fedex truck, they don't know what's in it. Same for a train (and they're allowed to refuse if they believe it's something they can't transport successfully or safely). The same general concept applies to telephone operators, in that they can't wiretap you, and often ISPs, since they're just transporting opaque encrypted bytes. But tweets and posts on public facebook pages or on reddit are public, the company can see them.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      > a common carrier can't tell what they're transporting They can tell what they're transporting, they're just not allowed to. Telephone operators could wiretap you (and use speech recognition to censor), ISPs could monitor unencrypted data, and even for encrypted data, monitor metadata like which server you connect to. Even FedEx could x-ray packages, or use drug sniffers. Anyway, you claimed this law violated previous precedents, but you've only responded about how it's different from previous precedents. Sure there are some differences, but how are those differences material to the question of whether governments are allowed to regulate "fair" or universal access to communications tech?