3 ms·

Ahh yes, the old "we're too successful to be able to operate responsibly" argument. Here's a thought: there's nothing that says that Twitter and friends have t

Ahh yes, the old "we're too successful to be able to operate responsibly" argument. Here's a thought: there's nothing that says that Twitter and friends have to exist. There was a time when being able to comply with the law was part of the business model, not a minor obstacle that needed to be worked around. As a (purely hypothetical) heroin dealer, I can't run a business if I keep getting thrown in jail. What's the solution?

trifurcate 4y ago
Here's a thought: I am purely hypothetically able to sell some previously unknown and unforeseen (therefore legal) opioid agonist that is just as addictive and dangerous as heroin with no issues of legality. Or maybe it isn't even an opioid agonist and has some novel mechanism of action that is yet unknown. What's the solution? New legislation that adapts to such a threat to societal welfare. And this is what is effectively happening here with litigation over Section 230 et al. (worth mentioning that it's not even the case that Twitter's business model involves working around the law; Section 230 _is_ the law and it shields Twitter from liability. So there is really no case here like you are describing to begin with.) The end of society and government is more or less to identify and avoid bad societal outcomes, and an evolving legal system is necessary to keep up with technological and social changes in the world. Maybe you are correct and Twitter shouldn't exist to begin with, alas Twitter exists and other things like Twitter exist. They aren't currently in grave violation of any law to my knowledge, and any law that is to be enacted regarding things like Twitter should be written in light of the current state of the world, which is that Twitter exists and that things like Twitter are easy to create.
- ultrarunner 4y ago
  Maybe it's fitting that this thread— in its consideration of the balance between freedom and benevolent force— invokes an analogy involving a subject of the war on drugs.
- cookie_monsta 4y ago
  Where I live psychoactive drugs are blacklisted by law. If you want to sell a new one legally you need to apply to get it put on the whitelist. They did this so that hypothetical you can't dodge the law by tweaking molecules and that new legislation doesn't have to be enacted every time you come up with a new recipe. I'm not saying that twitter shouldn't exist, I'm just saying that it and platforms like it don't have to exist in their current state. Section 230 _is_ the workaround that didn't have to be created just so that the platforms could operate outside of the regulations that other publishers are bound by
zuminator 4y ago
Ok, so Twitter and Facebook go out of business, only to be replaced by offshore businesses outside the legal reach of what replaces section 230. Honestly what you've done there is present a good case for why dealing heroin should be legal.
threeseed 4y ago
> "we're too successful to be able to operate responsibly" No. I am simply pointing out that comparing print media to online makes no sense.
- cookie_monsta 4y ago
  yes, because print media's business model allows it to operate responsibly

trifurcate 4y ago

Here's a thought: I am purely hypothetically able to sell some previously unknown and unforeseen (therefore legal) opioid agonist that is just as addictive and dangerous as heroin with no issues of legality. Or maybe it isn't even an opioid agonist and has some novel mechanism of action that is yet unknown. What's the solution? New legislation that adapts to such a threat to societal welfare. And this is what is effectively happening here with litigation over Section 230 et al. (worth mentioning that it's not even the case that Twitter's business model involves working around the law; Section 230 _is_ the law and it shields Twitter from liability. So there is really no case here like you are describing to begin with.) The end of society and government is more or less to identify and avoid bad societal outcomes, and an evolving legal system is necessary to keep up with technological and social changes in the world. Maybe you are correct and Twitter shouldn't exist to begin with, alas Twitter exists and other things like Twitter exist. They aren't currently in grave violation of any law to my knowledge, and any law that is to be enacted regarding things like Twitter should be written in light of the current state of the world, which is that Twitter exists and that things like Twitter are easy to create.

ultrarunner 4y ago
Maybe it's fitting that this thread— in its consideration of the balance between freedom and benevolent force— invokes an analogy involving a subject of the war on drugs.
cookie_monsta 4y ago
Where I live psychoactive drugs are blacklisted by law. If you want to sell a new one legally you need to apply to get it put on the whitelist. They did this so that hypothetical you can't dodge the law by tweaking molecules and that new legislation doesn't have to be enacted every time you come up with a new recipe. I'm not saying that twitter shouldn't exist, I'm just saying that it and platforms like it don't have to exist in their current state. Section 230 _is_ the workaround that didn't have to be created just so that the platforms could operate outside of the regulations that other publishers are bound by

zuminator 4y ago

Ok, so Twitter and Facebook go out of business, only to be replaced by offshore businesses outside the legal reach of what replaces section 230. Honestly what you've done there is present a good case for why dealing heroin should be legal.

threeseed 4y ago

> "we're too successful to be able to operate responsibly" No. I am simply pointing out that comparing print media to online makes no sense.

cookie_monsta 4y ago
yes, because print media's business model allows it to operate responsibly