4 ms·
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 "use
by 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 agoThe 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 agobut what if the _flying spaghetti monster cult_ were disproportionate users of bots for their viewpoints? how does twitter disprove bias?
- catiopatio 4y agoTwitter 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 agoperhaps - 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 agoWhat 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.