3 ms·

The ADL is getting advertisers to drop Twitter since Twitter won't delete the posts they don't like. That seems like action to me. Also the ADL and similar orgs

The ADL is getting advertisers to drop Twitter since Twitter won't delete the posts they don't like. That seems like action to me. Also the ADL and similar orgs had a direct line of access to content moderation teams in the previous twitter leadership. Getting companies to not delete posts if they want to not be held liable for stuff their users posts helps prevent this issue.

freejazz 3y ago
I meant a legal action, to which 230 would be a defense. Perhaps you should re-read 230 if you think it has relevance outside of legal actions. >Getting companies to not delete posts if they want to not be held liable for stuff their users posts helps prevent this issue. There's no circumstance here where twitter is being attempted to be made liable for their users posts, so what relevance is 230?
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  This is just more of the same "Independent entities invoking their legal right to free speech and association in a way I don't like is an impingement on my free speech" bullshit. It's telling they don't understand section 230 since they don't seem to understand 2/3rds of the first amendment either, and that's only a few sentences. If you want to require private companies to publish your content, you have to overturn the first amendment, or at the very least, replace the current supreme court with one open to extreme "interpretation" of the text, but maybe don't then complain when they ban guns.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    > they ban guns Or speech, for that matter. There's never a guarantee that an activist court rules in the way a person wants them to rule.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Getting companies to not delete posts if they want to not be held liable for stuff their users posts helps prevent this issue. If you return to the “any effort to moderate lawful content at all gives you publisher-style liability over the whole service” rule that existed pre-230, you destroy all commercial UGC sites pretty quickly. Because flawless moderation at scale isn't possible, and the market for unmoderated sites is pretty limited. (Especially because either way you have to respond to reports of certain potentially unlawful content to avoid criminal liability, and that rule creates a huge risk that a slight error in that response suddenly opens you up to unlimited civil liability for other content.) We know this because that was the emerging situation that Section 230 was the response to.
mrguyorama 3y ago
The ADL cannot hold ANYONE "liable" for anything. They can make a statement of their opinion, and advertisers are free to listen to that. Musk is mad that advertisers don't like being seen next to posts calling for violence, and are using their first amendment right of free association to NOT associate with a platform with a lot of calls to violence.

freejazz 3y ago

I meant a legal action, to which 230 would be a defense. Perhaps you should re-read 230 if you think it has relevance outside of legal actions. >Getting companies to not delete posts if they want to not be held liable for stuff their users posts helps prevent this issue. There's no circumstance here where twitter is being attempted to be made liable for their users posts, so what relevance is 230?

mrguyorama 3y ago
This is just more of the same "Independent entities invoking their legal right to free speech and association in a way I don't like is an impingement on my free speech" bullshit. It's telling they don't understand section 230 since they don't seem to understand 2/3rds of the first amendment either, and that's only a few sentences. If you want to require private companies to publish your content, you have to overturn the first amendment, or at the very least, replace the current supreme court with one open to extreme "interpretation" of the text, but maybe don't then complain when they ban guns.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > they ban guns Or speech, for that matter. There's never a guarantee that an activist court rules in the way a person wants them to rule.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Getting companies to not delete posts if they want to not be held liable for stuff their users posts helps prevent this issue. If you return to the “any effort to moderate lawful content at all gives you publisher-style liability over the whole service” rule that existed pre-230, you destroy all commercial UGC sites pretty quickly. Because flawless moderation at scale isn't possible, and the market for unmoderated sites is pretty limited. (Especially because either way you have to respond to reports of certain potentially unlawful content to avoid criminal liability, and that rule creates a huge risk that a slight error in that response suddenly opens you up to unlimited civil liability for other content.) We know this because that was the emerging situation that Section 230 was the response to.

mrguyorama 3y ago

The ADL cannot hold ANYONE "liable" for anything. They can make a statement of their opinion, and advertisers are free to listen to that. Musk is mad that advertisers don't like being seen next to posts calling for violence, and are using their first amendment right of free association to NOT associate with a platform with a lot of calls to violence.