3 ms·

I've mentioned this before, but the speech of Twitter users isn't Twitter's speech. So it seems laughable for them to claim this affects their speech whatsoever

I've mentioned this before, but the speech of Twitter users isn't Twitter's speech. So it seems laughable for them to claim this affects their speech whatsoever. Add to that the fact that Twitter (and all social media) are absolutely not interested in making their user's speech their own and being responsible for it. There's not even any compelled speech argument that Twitter is being forced to speak about something it does not want to. Twitter is a corporation, not a person. It has no right to exist and can have its business license revoked. Now, if Twitter does want to make each Twitter user's speech its own speech, then maybe Twitter might have grounds to make a 1A stand. But as is Twitter and all social media absolutely do not want to be held responsible for what they publish so, frankly, they can pound sand. It would be different if Twitter were considered similar to a newspaper where Twitter acted as editor and could be held accountable for what they publish. But they will fight that tooth and nail.

solardev 3y ago
I haven't looked at this in a bit, but I thought that companies are exempt from their users' speech only if they don't make editorial decisions (and Twitter does, like reddit or HN or Slashdot). Am I mistaken?
- zimpenfish 3y ago
  Companies are allowed to moderate their platforms under Section 230. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...
  - solardev 3y ago
    Thank you!
- bbatsell 3y ago
  That is something oft-repeated in conservative circles without a shred of basis in law. In fact, Section 230(c)(2) of the CDA does the exact opposite. It was written to explicitly _grant_ immunity when companies moderate in good faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
  - solardev 3y ago
    OK, thank you for the correction! I'll read it and learn more.
- function_seven 3y ago
  EDIT: I replied to this before refreshing and seeing sibling replies. So I guess all I have to add is another link. On the contrary, Section 230 is what allows platforms to make some editorial decisions without thereby assuming liability for all user-generated content. Before 230, what you said was true. I like this explanation: 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...
  - solardev 3y ago
    It's a good explanation, and more readable than the Wikipedia! Thanks for that.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> So it seems laughable for them to claim this affects their speech whatsoever. AFAICS the proposal doesn't require them to moderate Twitter users in any way; it requires Twitter to state publicly and clearly what their moderation policies are. But arguably stating its moderation policies is "compelled speech". Thing is, there's plenty of compelled speech going on, including food labelling laws. There's precedent (although I understand US law doesn't have "precedent" as such, just appeals to successive senior courts).
- fluidcruft 3y ago
  Yeah, exactly. There's no 1A territory here. The idea that a commercial business cannot be regulated and compelled by a State to produce a mere reporting of its relevant business activities is completely bonkers.
  - kjksf 3y ago
    It would be even more bonkers if government could regulate without any restrictions. Can California demand that a restaurant provides daily report on how often each employee washes their hands and fine them $15k per day if they don't or provide incorrect information? Per your simplistic argument it would be bonkers if California could create such law. It's a mere reporting of its relevant business activity. To me it would be bonkers if California could create such onerous regulation. In law analogies only get you so far. I'm pretty sure that things like food labeling were challenged in courts and were found to not violate 1st amendment but the onerous requirements California tries to impose here are not even close to use them as some kind of precedent.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - fluidcruft 3y ago
      There are always consequences to regulations and practical restrictions seen at the ballot box. If the reporting is justifiable and required of all restaurants, then... so be it? If the People are unconvinced that it's necessary or they don't like it and think the government is out of touch, we throw the bums out. The very real risk of losing of power is what keeps them from passing the sorts of "ridiculous" regulations you are proposing.

solardev 3y ago

I haven't looked at this in a bit, but I thought that companies are exempt from their users' speech only if they don't make editorial decisions (and Twitter does, like reddit or HN or Slashdot). Am I mistaken?

zimpenfish 3y ago
Companies are allowed to moderate their platforms under Section 230. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...
- solardev 3y ago
  Thank you!
bbatsell 3y ago
That is something oft-repeated in conservative circles without a shred of basis in law. In fact, Section 230(c)(2) of the CDA does the exact opposite. It was written to explicitly _grant_ immunity when companies moderate in good faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
- solardev 3y ago
  OK, thank you for the correction! I'll read it and learn more.
function_seven 3y ago
EDIT: I replied to this before refreshing and seeing sibling replies. So I guess all I have to add is another link. On the contrary, Section 230 is what allows platforms to make some editorial decisions without thereby assuming liability for all user-generated content. Before 230, what you said was true. I like this explanation: 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...
- solardev 3y ago
  It's a good explanation, and more readable than the Wikipedia! Thanks for that.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> So it seems laughable for them to claim this affects their speech whatsoever. AFAICS the proposal doesn't require them to moderate Twitter users in any way; it requires Twitter to state publicly and clearly what their moderation policies are. But arguably stating its moderation policies is "compelled speech". Thing is, there's plenty of compelled speech going on, including food labelling laws. There's precedent (although I understand US law doesn't have "precedent" as such, just appeals to successive senior courts).

fluidcruft 3y ago
Yeah, exactly. There's no 1A territory here. The idea that a commercial business cannot be regulated and compelled by a State to produce a mere reporting of its relevant business activities is completely bonkers.
- kjksf 3y ago
  It would be even more bonkers if government could regulate without any restrictions. Can California demand that a restaurant provides daily report on how often each employee washes their hands and fine them $15k per day if they don't or provide incorrect information? Per your simplistic argument it would be bonkers if California could create such law. It's a mere reporting of its relevant business activity. To me it would be bonkers if California could create such onerous regulation. In law analogies only get you so far. I'm pretty sure that things like food labeling were challenged in courts and were found to not violate 1st amendment but the onerous requirements California tries to impose here are not even close to use them as some kind of precedent.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fluidcruft 3y ago
    There are always consequences to regulations and practical restrictions seen at the ballot box. If the reporting is justifiable and required of all restaurants, then... so be it? If the People are unconvinced that it's necessary or they don't like it and think the government is out of touch, we throw the bums out. The very real risk of losing of power is what keeps them from passing the sorts of "ridiculous" regulations you are proposing.