4 ms·

Regardless of what the answer to your question is, X is not a newspaper.

mcpackieh 3y ago
In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. Unless a double standard is being applied "because computers", which is what I am teasing out. The courts are better about upholding the First Amendment when there is ink being put on paper, because that's something which is well established and understood. As soon as computers get involved, people get this idea that old rules no longer apply "because computers". This is why the book PGP Source Code and Internals was published; because ink on paper makes the matter clear cut.
- rewmie 3y ago
  > In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. This sort of pointless truism means nothing at all. The crux of the matter boils down to the common carrier status, and whether companies can be held liable for the content being handled through their service. If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that.
  - function_seven 3y ago
    > If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that. My apologies if I am misinterpreting your statement here, but this feels like a misunderstanding of section 230. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
- Volundr 3y ago
  The difference isn't "because computers", the difference is that Twitter claims it has no editorial control over the content published on its platform while a newspaper claims complete editorial control. That's a huge functional difference.
- wgjordan 3y ago
  The so-called 'double standard' in AB-587 (defining 'social media platform') is entirely consistent with the existing federal 'double standard' set up a quarter-century ago by Section 230, which makes providers of 'interactive computer services' immunity from liability for content moderation decisions. This bill can be seen as oversight layered on top of those existing content-moderation liability protections. If you want to tilt at 'because computers' windmills, Section 230 is the real target.

In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. Unless a double standard is being applied "because computers", which is what I am teasing out. The courts are better about upholding the First Amendment when there is ink being put on paper, because that's something which is well established and understood. As soon as computers get involved, people get this idea that old rules no longer apply "because computers". This is why the book PGP Source Code and Internals was published; because ink on paper makes the matter clear cut.

rewmie 3y ago
> In principle they have the same constitutional rights as newspapers. This sort of pointless truism means nothing at all. The crux of the matter boils down to the common carrier status, and whether companies can be held liable for the content being handled through their service. If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that.
- function_seven 3y ago
  > If a social media company editorializes the content it distributes, it's liable for each and any consequence of distributing it. Simple as that. My apologies if I am misinterpreting your statement here, but this feels like a misunderstanding of section 230. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
Volundr 3y ago
The difference isn't "because computers", the difference is that Twitter claims it has no editorial control over the content published on its platform while a newspaper claims complete editorial control. That's a huge functional difference.
wgjordan 3y ago
The so-called 'double standard' in AB-587 (defining 'social media platform') is entirely consistent with the existing federal 'double standard' set up a quarter-century ago by Section 230, which makes providers of 'interactive computer services' immunity from liability for content moderation decisions. This bill can be seen as oversight layered on top of those existing content-moderation liability protections. If you want to tilt at 'because computers' windmills, Section 230 is the real target.