3 ms·

Content moderation is a balancing act. Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. Do you believe that zero content moderation is

Content moderation is a balancing act. Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. Do you believe that zero content moderation is good?

pessimizer 4y ago
I take content moderation on a case by case basis. That's like asking me to decide between whether all movies are good or all movies should be banned. > Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. We should help them by giving them far less latitude.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Note that the First Amendment prohibits the government from being able to mandate any moderation guidelines whatsoever, as moderation is inherently a content-based restriction on speech.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    My problem is that the government has found a sweet spot where it can regulate speech and surveil without limits through dependent proxies. It has no need to mandate moderation guidelines.
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      If the government is regulating speech via dependent proxies, that is in violation of the First Amendment. There is actually developed case law as to what constitutes sufficient government coercion that turns a third party into a state actor, and some of things that have been done actually cut close enough to that threshold to be viably argued at trial. The problem is that no one filing these various cases against social media is properly alleging sufficient facts to suggest government coercion: it's that Twitter (et al.) are state actors because §230, or yappy politician said they should do this [1], or even merely arguing that First Amendment applies to social media absent showing of state actor just because. All of which are stupid arguments so facially wrong that they're not going to survive a motion to dismiss. [1] While threatening legislation is in fact illegal government coercion, this needs to be understood on the same grounds as true threats: namely, it has to be reasonably believed and understood to be a specific threat, and not hyperbole or puffery or the like. Also, and there are some people who fail to recognize the basic linearity of time, a supposed threat made after the action in question was taken cannot have been a cause of that action.
      - 0x445442 4y ago
        > The problem is that no one filing these various cases against social media is properly alleging sufficient facts to suggest government coercion… Alex Berenson did.
        aw1621107 4y ago
        Hardly. The judge tossed all of Berenson's claims that relate to government coercion [0]. The only claims that survived are those for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, which didn't have to do with alleged government coercion. > In sum, plaintiff’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims survive for now. Plaintiff’s other claims are futile and are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. [0]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.38...
        0x445442 4y ago
        Twitter reinstated him because he has internal communications showing Twitter colluded with the Biden administration to silence him for publishing information that went against the administration’s narrative.
        aw1621107 4y ago
        That doesn't change the analysis with respect to jcranmer's comment, though, since those were not alleged in a court case, let alone a case where government coercion was deemed plausible. Now, if Berenson sues Twitter again (and/or Biden, presumably) and the judge finds those communications (and other facts) sufficient to establish state action (i.e., the claims survive a motion to dismiss), then that may be sufficient to be a counterexample to the original comment.

Content moderation is a balancing act. Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. Do you believe that zero content moderation is good?

pessimizer 4y ago

I take content moderation on a case by case basis. That's like asking me to decide between whether all movies are good or all movies should be banned. > Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. We should help them by giving them far less latitude.

jcranmer 4y ago
Note that the First Amendment prohibits the government from being able to mandate any moderation guidelines whatsoever, as moderation is inherently a content-based restriction on speech.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  My problem is that the government has found a sweet spot where it can regulate speech and surveil without limits through dependent proxies. It has no need to mandate moderation guidelines.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    If the government is regulating speech via dependent proxies, that is in violation of the First Amendment. There is actually developed case law as to what constitutes sufficient government coercion that turns a third party into a state actor, and some of things that have been done actually cut close enough to that threshold to be viably argued at trial. The problem is that no one filing these various cases against social media is properly alleging sufficient facts to suggest government coercion: it's that Twitter (et al.) are state actors because §230, or yappy politician said they should do this [1], or even merely arguing that First Amendment applies to social media absent showing of state actor just because. All of which are stupid arguments so facially wrong that they're not going to survive a motion to dismiss. [1] While threatening legislation is in fact illegal government coercion, this needs to be understood on the same grounds as true threats: namely, it has to be reasonably believed and understood to be a specific threat, and not hyperbole or puffery or the like. Also, and there are some people who fail to recognize the basic linearity of time, a supposed threat made after the action in question was taken cannot have been a cause of that action.
    - 0x445442 4y ago
      > The problem is that no one filing these various cases against social media is properly alleging sufficient facts to suggest government coercion… Alex Berenson did.
      - aw1621107 4y ago
        Hardly. The judge tossed all of Berenson's claims that relate to government coercion [0]. The only claims that survived are those for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, which didn't have to do with alleged government coercion. > In sum, plaintiff’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims survive for now. Plaintiff’s other claims are futile and are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. [0]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.38...
        0x445442 4y ago
        Twitter reinstated him because he has internal communications showing Twitter colluded with the Biden administration to silence him for publishing information that went against the administration’s narrative.
        aw1621107 4y ago
        That doesn't change the analysis with respect to jcranmer's comment, though, since those were not alleged in a court case, let alone a case where government coercion was deemed plausible. Now, if Berenson sues Twitter again (and/or Biden, presumably) and the judge finds those communications (and other facts) sufficient to establish state action (i.e., the claims survive a motion to dismiss), then that may be sufficient to be a counterexample to the original comment.